ATR DOWN IN PALERMO LAST YEAR: PILOT'S FAULT (ACCORDING TO TV PROGRAMME)

[LEM]

Just watched the Tv: there still was enough fuel to reach Palermo on the Tuninter which ditched last year...

[atakacs]

So why did the engines stop running ?!

[Clandestino]

According to fuel gauges, there were almost two tons of fuel left onboard

To qoute Jim Davis: If you've seen it on television, then it must be true.

[Austrian Simon]

Originally Posted by LEM

Just watched the Tv: there still was enough fuel to reach Palermo on the Tuninter which ditched last year...

The fuel gauges did show, that they had sufficient fuel, however the tanks were empty. The reason: the wrong fuel gauges were mounted in that airplane (for the ATR-42 instead of the ATR-72, which were calibrated for a different mechanical tank design).

You may read more about this incident in the original thread at:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=189195

Also, you can read the safety recommendations released by Italian Authorities and affirmed by European Authorities at:

http://www.ansv.it/En/Index.asp

A factual or final report has not been released yet.

Servus, Simon

[cringe]

In this light, a news article (in Italian) on the subject seems puzzling:

http://www.repubblica.it/2006/04/sez...r-palermo.html

"Had the pilot and the copilot followed the instructions from the ATR 72's flight manual they could have landed at Punta Raisi airport, even with less fuel than that indicated by the fuel gauge."

[Clandestino]

Not puzzling at all. It's just a journo interpretation of documents compiled by italian magistrates who lead a manslaughter investigation against tuninter flightcrew.

There's a beautiful italian phrase for people who can make such a wonderfully long-drawn conclusions: testa di c@zz0.

[error_401]

On the ATR unfortunately the guys probably had no warning at all.

The first indication that someting might be wrong was probably the first engine quitting. Usually the right one which is used as APU and to start so the left one was probably left with a little more fuel.

Now try to figure out how far you go with - let's say 100 kg of fuel at a fuel flow of roughly 450 kg/h on one engine...

But your fuel indicators show you 1'800 kg of fuel or something like that.

These guys had a bad day.

Who is to blame? Wait for the factual final report of the ENSV. When we have all the details and the CVR transscript we will come back to this discussion

error_401

ATR jockey

[Boxfile]

I don't recall any part of the pre-flight checks to include that the fuel guages were checked to see that they were the correct ones for the aircraft!??

[Bus429]

Lem,

Strongly suggest you navigate the ANSV site for more accurate information.

http://www.ansv.it/En/Search.asp

TV documentaries about crashes or incidents tend to focus on the sensational rather than factual aspects. For example, recent TV documentaries about Alaska 261 (MD-83 horizontal stab loss) and Air Transat 236 (fuel loss over Atlantic) are technically and factually inaccurate (or just plain wrong!). The final reports issued by the NTSB for the former and the GABINETE DE PREVENÇÃO E INVESTIGAÇÃO DE ACIDENTES COM AERONAVES for the latter are both the accurate and official records of the accident/incident.

[FougaMagister]

... unfortunately, they make heavier reading than sitting back and watching a TV programme aimed at a wide (and non-technically-inclined) audience.

Interestingly (and leaving aside the issue of the wrong fuel indicator being installed during maintenance), the Italian AAIB recommended in its interim report on the TUNINTER ATR ditching that fuel low-level warning systems be made independent of the fuel gauges/totalisers; a recommendation endorsed by the EASA.

That would seem to indicate an absence of responsibility on the part of the flight crew. Starting with the wrong fuel figure in Tunisia on the outbound leg, they would probably have had to dipstick the fuel tanks to detect the mistake; but why would they have done that unless they suspected a problem with the fuel indicators in the first place?

While it makes for riveting TV to point to a single cause, aircraft accidents are invariably the result of a SERIES of circumstances - each of which, taken separately, being apparently innocuous. There is hardly ever a "smoking gun" in flight safety.

Cheers

[TvB]

Originally Posted by Boxfile

I don't recall any part of the pre-flight checks to include that the fuel guages were checked to see that they were the correct ones for the aircraft!??

That is right but have in mind that these two made a previous flight. x checking the fuel quantity prior to take off then monitoring it during the flight to Bari should have triggered their attention on a rising discrepency in regards to the fuel indicated on the wrong indicators. Fuel calculation is vital and fuel monitoring too.
TvB

[Frangible]

many I know thought the National Geographic film on Alaska 261 was good. Where are the errors, Bus 429?