Body found in landing gear bay on BA B744 @ LAX
PAXboy
Not necessarily.
US AIR (and others) have layover checks performed down the line.
My point is that at least the body would be found after one flight. It doesn't exactly look good when a body is flown several sectors when it really should have been discovered at the next transit.
As I understand it, these problems have occurred after a turn-around, not a layover? That is, interpreting 'layover' as being one that involves very specific engineering checks when the a/c is at a base, rather than a two or three hour turn down line, such as JNB or NBO.
US AIR (and others) have layover checks performed down the line.
My point is that at least the body would be found after one flight. It doesn't exactly look good when a body is flown several sectors when it really should have been discovered at the next transit.
I seem to recall (now don't quote me, but if anyone has the official version) an Air Polynesian B737 with a main landing gear failing to extend. Landed on the runway with much damage. Subsequent investigation revealed a stowaway in the wheel well. Plenty of room when the gear is down, yet when retracted the unfortunate bugger was crushed and the spilt fluids froze the gear up. Not pretty.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 84
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Daily Telegraph today states “ The body of a South African teenager found in the wheel well of a British airway’s jet at Los Angeles airport may have been there for almost a week, officials indicated yesterday.
It is believed that Samual Peter Benjamin, 17, crept aboard the aircraft at Cape Town, his home town, before it left on Jan 22. His body was found by a pilot in the nose wheel well of the Boeing 747 during a routine inspection at Los Angeles international airport just before take off on Sunday (28th Jan 2007). The flight had arrived from Heathrow several hours earlier, but had previously stopped at Singapore, Vancouver, Hong Kong and Cape Town.”
Makes one wonder how the body had not been detected before.
Are the undercarriage bays not subject of inspections during After Flight, Before Flight or Turn round servicing? If not in view of the many previous occurrences of people trying to stow-away in the undercarriage bays should not a requirement for such inspections be added to the schedules?
It is believed that Samual Peter Benjamin, 17, crept aboard the aircraft at Cape Town, his home town, before it left on Jan 22. His body was found by a pilot in the nose wheel well of the Boeing 747 during a routine inspection at Los Angeles international airport just before take off on Sunday (28th Jan 2007). The flight had arrived from Heathrow several hours earlier, but had previously stopped at Singapore, Vancouver, Hong Kong and Cape Town.”
Makes one wonder how the body had not been detected before.
Are the undercarriage bays not subject of inspections during After Flight, Before Flight or Turn round servicing? If not in view of the many previous occurrences of people trying to stow-away in the undercarriage bays should not a requirement for such inspections be added to the schedules?
Last edited by MReyn24050; 3rd Feb 2007 at 11:34.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: head in the clouds
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe burglar alarm technology could be used to detect stowaways? I guess false alarms could be avoided with careful design.
firstly being an unpressurised, non temprature controled area, you have the possibility or indeed proberbility of leaving the components operating temprature range, with unknown results. even if you stay within temp range for the components, condensation is an issue, and can cause both false activations and nil activations
secondly, there is a definate proberbility of both false positives and false negitives in the detection system its self, .. assuming that it *never* leaves is design paramiters.
false postives are annoying and would largely cause air/ground crew to learn to ignore the alarm if possible. False negitives would result in no alarm activation, should an intruder decide to enter that area.
False positive/negitive statuses become more likely as the equipment ages as well.
the net result would be a loosening of the guard against stowaways, on the blithe assumption that 1, the alarm will get it, and 2, when the alarm activates, its a false alarm
i would support more and greater depth ground checks by .. well humans.
If gear bay doors cannot be signaled open for inspection, maybe this should be raised with the manufacturers?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tween Hurn&Filton
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fascinated to know what Orographic does now...teach 'speling' presumably?
Securaplane would be devastated to hear how unlikely their equipment would be to work in such a hostile environment. Many corporate operators have installed Securaplane for passive security monitoring and this includes motion sensors in all wheel wells (just like the ones you have at home for your burglar alarm).
In the event of someone poking their head (or more) into any of the WWs, both the time and location of the intrusion is recorded. The operator would then visually inspect the relevant bay and eject any foreign body(sic!). This would appear to offer a fairly cheap and viable solution to a tragic problem.
Securaplane would be devastated to hear how unlikely their equipment would be to work in such a hostile environment. Many corporate operators have installed Securaplane for passive security monitoring and this includes motion sensors in all wheel wells (just like the ones you have at home for your burglar alarm).
In the event of someone poking their head (or more) into any of the WWs, both the time and location of the intrusion is recorded. The operator would then visually inspect the relevant bay and eject any foreign body(sic!). This would appear to offer a fairly cheap and viable solution to a tragic problem.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: head in the clouds
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paradise lost, what I currently do for a paying job is .. monitering alarm systems( *shrug* it pays for my flying ).
standard PIR's ( paasive infared sensors ... "motion detectors" to those who do not undarstand how they work) would be unsutable to that environment, and for the reasions specified. How do I know this? Because every other day I have to send patrols out to sites where very similer false activations are occuring, wasting their time as well as mine, in order to verify that the activations are, in fact, false, and the reasion for the activation is a well known condition that the owner of the premises has been advised of time and again. I have also had to explain to site owners why alarms did not activate when they had been broken into and thousands of dollers of stock taken. Given that, I think that I can say that there would be some minor risk in trusting such technology, ne?
Certainly special use componentry could be manufactured for that enviroment, I never claimed it could not. However standard OTS componentry would be unsutable. While I have not researched what the company that you have sited, uses in their systems, i would hope they are useing a specialist use component set and are providing a comprehensive servicing setup for those aircraft. If not, then those alarms are worse than useless. Human nature will mean that in an environment with a large number of false status events, people will start ignoring the alarms.
If you need further proof of that point, just watch the vast and sweeping reaction, next time someones car or house alarm goes off.
Infact if a home alarm system is left sounding for more than a few seconds, it tends to be used by offenders as an indication that no-one is home and its safe to continue the break.
oh and the biggest causes of false alarms?
Moisture in the circutry, Moisture or insects in front of the apature,twigs, a truck driving past outside, a "hot spot" against a cooler background ( or infact any steep enough temprature differential. not actually a failure mode, as this is precisely what a PIR "looks" for, not movement as a most people seem to think. infact it can't look for movement because it has no memory retention at all. all sorts of things can cause this effect, a human body is only one of those. others i have seen have been air conditioning outlets, a fax machine, and an ember falling out of a fire grate and into the detection zone of the PIR.)
Oh, and Paradise, i realise that my spelling is a little suspect at times, however one thing that i have learned in my time, is that the concept of security , for anything that you cannot sit and eyeball 24/7, is a myth. It ultimately comes down to what do you beleave you can trust.
By far the most reliable alarm system if the mk1 eyeball.
G-OPCON, possible the only concerns I would have, are positioning the camera so that the widest possble coverage could be maintained, and ensuring the coax to the cameras was protected from tampering. other than that, that would be a reasionable solution.
Maintance would be an issue, as would ensuring the non-contamination of the len ( the "body " of the camera and circutry could be sealed, rendering moisture in circut irrelivant at the camera end, the same would have to be ensured at the viewing/processing/transmitting end)
ok so CCTV would be a realistic contender for a partial solution, assuming mounts and cable runs could be suitably situated and protected...
standard PIR's ( paasive infared sensors ... "motion detectors" to those who do not undarstand how they work) would be unsutable to that environment, and for the reasions specified. How do I know this? Because every other day I have to send patrols out to sites where very similer false activations are occuring, wasting their time as well as mine, in order to verify that the activations are, in fact, false, and the reasion for the activation is a well known condition that the owner of the premises has been advised of time and again. I have also had to explain to site owners why alarms did not activate when they had been broken into and thousands of dollers of stock taken. Given that, I think that I can say that there would be some minor risk in trusting such technology, ne?
Certainly special use componentry could be manufactured for that enviroment, I never claimed it could not. However standard OTS componentry would be unsutable. While I have not researched what the company that you have sited, uses in their systems, i would hope they are useing a specialist use component set and are providing a comprehensive servicing setup for those aircraft. If not, then those alarms are worse than useless. Human nature will mean that in an environment with a large number of false status events, people will start ignoring the alarms.
If you need further proof of that point, just watch the vast and sweeping reaction, next time someones car or house alarm goes off.
Infact if a home alarm system is left sounding for more than a few seconds, it tends to be used by offenders as an indication that no-one is home and its safe to continue the break.
oh and the biggest causes of false alarms?
Moisture in the circutry, Moisture or insects in front of the apature,twigs, a truck driving past outside, a "hot spot" against a cooler background ( or infact any steep enough temprature differential. not actually a failure mode, as this is precisely what a PIR "looks" for, not movement as a most people seem to think. infact it can't look for movement because it has no memory retention at all. all sorts of things can cause this effect, a human body is only one of those. others i have seen have been air conditioning outlets, a fax machine, and an ember falling out of a fire grate and into the detection zone of the PIR.)
Oh, and Paradise, i realise that my spelling is a little suspect at times, however one thing that i have learned in my time, is that the concept of security , for anything that you cannot sit and eyeball 24/7, is a myth. It ultimately comes down to what do you beleave you can trust.
By far the most reliable alarm system if the mk1 eyeball.
G-OPCON, possible the only concerns I would have, are positioning the camera so that the widest possble coverage could be maintained, and ensuring the coax to the cameras was protected from tampering. other than that, that would be a reasionable solution.
Maintance would be an issue, as would ensuring the non-contamination of the len ( the "body " of the camera and circutry could be sealed, rendering moisture in circut irrelivant at the camera end, the same would have to be ensured at the viewing/processing/transmitting end)
ok so CCTV would be a realistic contender for a partial solution, assuming mounts and cable runs could be suitably situated and protected...
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 84
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VSB via OL stated "Forgive me - is this still the "PROFESSIONAL PILOTS" forum??"
I must admit I support his question.
As stated at an earlier post I wrote "The Daily Telegraph today states “ The body of a South African teenager found in the wheel well of a British airway’s jet at Los Angeles airport may have been there for almost a week, officials indicated yesterday.
It is believed that Samual Peter Benjamin, 17, crept aboard the aircraft at Cape Town, his home town, before it left on Jan 22. His body was found by a pilot in the nose wheel well of the Boeing 747 during a routine inspection at Los Angeles international airport just before take off on Sunday (28th Jan 2007). The flight had arrived from Heathrow several hours earlier, but had previously stopped at Singapore, Vancouver, Hong Kong and Cape Town.”
My experience is based on many years maintaining military aircraft which were subjected to Before Flight, Turn round and After Flight Inspections. The incident is reported to have come to light when a pilot carried out a routine inspection of the nose wheel bay.
My question is, how was the body not discovered prior to this particular inspection?
What exactly does the Inspection schedule call for in this area?
I must admit I support his question.
As stated at an earlier post I wrote "The Daily Telegraph today states “ The body of a South African teenager found in the wheel well of a British airway’s jet at Los Angeles airport may have been there for almost a week, officials indicated yesterday.
It is believed that Samual Peter Benjamin, 17, crept aboard the aircraft at Cape Town, his home town, before it left on Jan 22. His body was found by a pilot in the nose wheel well of the Boeing 747 during a routine inspection at Los Angeles international airport just before take off on Sunday (28th Jan 2007). The flight had arrived from Heathrow several hours earlier, but had previously stopped at Singapore, Vancouver, Hong Kong and Cape Town.”
My experience is based on many years maintaining military aircraft which were subjected to Before Flight, Turn round and After Flight Inspections. The incident is reported to have come to light when a pilot carried out a routine inspection of the nose wheel bay.
My question is, how was the body not discovered prior to this particular inspection?
What exactly does the Inspection schedule call for in this area?
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The body was found in the right hand wing gear at the front, forward of the wheels.
I was a bit slow carrying out a walkround once. My QFI leaned out of the cockpit and announced: "For goodness sake hurry up - you're flying it, not buying it!"
I was a bit slow carrying out a walkround once. My QFI leaned out of the cockpit and announced: "For goodness sake hurry up - you're flying it, not buying it!"
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 84
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
overstress
The body was found in the right hand wing gear at the front, forward of the wheels.
OK it was not the Nose Wheel Bay but does that make it less serious? My question was what inspections if any should be carried out in this area between flights?
OK it was not the Nose Wheel Bay but does that make it less serious? My question was what inspections if any should be carried out in this area between flights?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Here 'n there
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although MReyn has a point, the context of my post was directed more at the ramblings of Orographic - (Sorry Oro!) - it was just a bit too far off the beaten track to get your original point across.
vsb
vsb
OK it was not the Nose Wheel Bay but does that make it less serious? My question was what inspections if any should be carried out in this area between flights?
Just a thought, how about placing a couple of mirrors inside the well
that can be viewed from the ground for easy inspection.. .
that can be viewed from the ground for easy inspection.. .
). Easier just to open the doors and do a full visual inspection during the Transit Check.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: head in the clouds
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VSB, its ok ,and yes it did wander a little off topic, but i do feel trying to nut out how to stop it happening again, is a useful expenditure of energy. After all, who wants a body on their conscious, regardless or not if you could have done anything to prevent the poor sod from expiring. There is a reasion why train drivers, for example, get free counceling after an incident in their line of work.
maybe the topic should fork at this point, into two threads, one for the event, and one looking for solutions to impliment?
maybe the topic should fork at this point, into two threads, one for the event, and one looking for solutions to impliment?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: down-route
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no sympathy for those who die in wheel wells.
Whenever we return from India or Africa, I always think about stowaways when we're flying an approach to one of LHR's westerly runways. I hope and pray I'm not about to drop a frozen body onto the innocent people of London as I move the gear lever to the down position.
If they're prepared to die trying to seek a better life then that's their choice, unfortunately plenty of desperates die in boats, cargo containers, trains etc. every year. My concern with airline stowaways is the risk their actions have on the people who live beneath the approach paths to international airports.
I'm also amazed at the pathetic torches some of my colleagues use when they do a walk-around. As a result, it's not surprising bodies go undetected for a few flights.
Whenever we return from India or Africa, I always think about stowaways when we're flying an approach to one of LHR's westerly runways. I hope and pray I'm not about to drop a frozen body onto the innocent people of London as I move the gear lever to the down position.
If they're prepared to die trying to seek a better life then that's their choice, unfortunately plenty of desperates die in boats, cargo containers, trains etc. every year. My concern with airline stowaways is the risk their actions have on the people who live beneath the approach paths to international airports.
I'm also amazed at the pathetic torches some of my colleagues use when they do a walk-around. As a result, it's not surprising bodies go undetected for a few flights.