Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

HF A310 accident report @ Vienna out now

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

HF A310 accident report @ Vienna out now

Old 10th Aug 2007, 23:15
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I usually hesitate to respond to topics like these because, there for the love of god, go I, but...

Come on, basic airmanship!!! The wheels hang out, sure, I admit, I would try and see if I could make it too. As a matter of fact, I have been in a similar situation once ( granted in a turboprop) and I did continue to the destination.

However, FMS aside, and knowledge about fuel predictions, etc, etc, you have an operational flightplan. In a situation like that you compare the OFP remaining fuel against the actual fuel on board. You get the picture, at each waypoint the actual remaining fuel on board falls more and more below the required fuel on board as per OFP.

Personally, I tend to trust the OFP ( we use LIDO) more than the FMS as the FMS uses average inputs while LIDO looks ahead. In any case a combination of the two would yield the best info to decide to continue or not.

In this case, I feel the guys really f%&*k up.
flyburg is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2007, 23:19
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Arroyo
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm not a pilot, and have no idea of the burden of such a situation. But reading the report in full, German included, my impression is that the Capt have been overconfident, hoping to please both the company and the pax despite the gear retraction failure. How much weight has a company-ACAR such as the one quoted on page 7, telling him to reach STR, whenever possible (since another A/C would have been available), when you're flying into troubles?
ettore is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2007, 23:34
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,079
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hello!
> In this case, I feel the guys really f%&*k up.
This is what the German court also thought when it convicted the captain to 6 months prison sentence (suspended) for endangering lives. Three years ago.
But I still don't know if it really was a criminal offence.

We all make mistakes of judgement all the time, and in this case, the pilot has trusted an instrument (that he had learned to trust over the years!) more than his common sense and the common sense of his colleague. Add commercial pressures and high workload to that. His decision was certainly a big mistake. But criminal?

Greetings, Max
what next is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2007, 21:29
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"FUEL - FU vs. FOB" warning

llondel,

The warning on the A330/A340 classics that came out after the Air Transat incident, compares initial FOB with actual FOB plus FU; if that equation does not add up by 3.5t (if my memory serves me right here), then you´ll get a warning. It is therefore only useful if you have an external leak, and wouldn´t have helped Happy Lloyd.

Btw: The list of inhibitions for this warning is incredibly loooong. So, don´t trust the machine too much. Better check yourself every once in a while.

Cheers,
J.V.
jettison valve is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2007, 21:52
  #25 (permalink)  
Green Guard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Right Ettore

And if you have time please check on that report why the same Capt, when both engines failed a minute or so before VIE runway, elected to land beside the runway, on the GRASS
 
Old 12th Aug 2007, 01:34
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It all comes down to looking at the FMS as though is 'knows all/tells all' but clearly we have not come far enough yet to realise the consequenses of a low fuel state.

PanAmerican, in all their jet aircraft, had a laminated flight conduct chart many times in two pages with detailed data on normal and abnormal flight planning...and yes, flying with the landing gear extended was well presented.

PanAm simply did it better, in my opinion....including a final configuration check as the very last item before brakes release, prior to takeoff.
411A is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2007, 15:40
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Littlehampton
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Seems to me that they didn't actually have a valid fuel 'plog' - they just changed the destination in the FMS and accepted its calculations.

Interesting items in the report are that the F/O tried to present the Capt with the gear down ferry tables early in the flight but was dismissed with the remark that they were for pre-flight planning only; the F/O effectively took the initiative when the 2nd engine flamed out and the reason the aircraft landed on the grass was that the 'Land Recovery' system was not activated so only partial flight controls were available?
Basil Smallpiece is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2007, 20:57
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
and the reason the aircraft landed on the grass was that the 'Land Recovery' system was not activated so only partial flight controls were available?
"Land Recovery" has nothing to do with flight controls. It supplies

- Anti skid
- SFCC
- Spoilers
hetfield is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2007, 02:14
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Arroyo
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Report, page 11:
das Schalten des "Land Recovery" -Schalter unterblieb,was dazu führte, dass die Steuerung auf die innen angeordneten Querruder beschränkt und die Manövrierbarkeit im unteren Geschwindigkeitsbereich eingeschränkt war (keine Spoiler, Klappen oder Vorflügel
Which means, according to the report, that the Land Recovery being OFF, the use of the roll aileron was limited, as well as the maneuverability at low speed.
Additionnal note: From flame-out to impact they glided 12 NM.
ettore is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2007, 02:33
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pacific Rim
Age: 54
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
flyburg said it all. The guys botched it. Had it been an oriental ot third world guy, people would have made all kinds of disparaging remarks about airmanship and pilot skills! You guys are so kind to this crew.
nankanguy is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2007, 02:49
  #31 (permalink)  
prospector
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
what next,
"Add commercial pressures and high workload to that. His decision was certainly a big mistake. But criminal?"
If the driver of a coach went over the centre line of a motorway, and because of that action people were killed or injured, would you say that action was a "big mistake" or criminal negligence?. If yes, for criminal negligence which would very likely be the end result, then why the difference? because one is driving an aeroplane and one a coach??
 
Old 13th Aug 2007, 07:15
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@ettore

dass die Steuerung auf die innen angeordneten Querruder beschränkt und die Manövrierbarkeit im unteren Geschwindigkeitsbereich eingeschränkt war (keine Spoiler, Klappen oder Vorflügel)
It's a translation problem.
It doesn't mean "the use of the roll aileron was limited."

It means FLIGHT CONTROL WAS LIMITED TO INNER MOUNTED AILERONS.

And yes, with regards to the spoilers, flight controls were affected without Land Recovery provided windmilling or RAT pressure was sufficient to operate some of the spoilers. Same with slats/flaps. With Land Recovery on you still need HYD of windmilling eng and/or RAT. With 220 kt I'm not sure about windmilling HYD pressure, RAT should be fine but only YELLOW for primary FCTL/flaps and it takes veeeery long to extend them.
hetfield is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2007, 05:09
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Somewhere out there...
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The event has parallels with the Indian Airlines forced landing in a paddy field in Nov 1993. They had a missed approach due to weather and could not retract the flaps due to a flap jam. They ran out of fuel when diverting.
http://dgca.nic.in/accident/acc93.pdf see page 7.

At least the Indian authorities had the balls to lay the fault squarely at the pilot and not squirm for 7 years and then try to point fingers at the aircraft.
Busbert is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2007, 09:17
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: England
Posts: 123
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
balsa wood, your description of the way the fms looks at fuel consumption, is pretty much spot on, on a Boeing anyway.
John Boeman is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2007, 09:47
  #35 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Indeed, JB, but we do not even need to worry ourselves about how it does it. For those with FMS 'fixation', the 'predicted' arrival fuel would have been reducing all the time. This is not withstanding a fuel flow of xxxx and a fuel remaining of yyyy - pretty basic stuff. How anyone can sit and look at that and not do the obvious defeats me.
BOAC is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2007, 06:14
  #36 (permalink)  
Green Guard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
FMS 'fixation',

For those with FMS 'fixation', the 'predicted' arrival fuel would have been reducing all the time
Yes ---if you mean OFP.
No---if you mean FMS. *


* It should remain the same all the remaining flight
IF the changing wind conditions were input correctly in FMS,
or IF there was no wind change along the "all the time" part of the flight.



Last edited by Green Guard; 15th Aug 2007 at 06:27.
 
Old 15th Aug 2007, 08:21
  #37 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GG - I go with post #17.
BOAC is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2007, 12:03
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: EDDM
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting:

(personal translation)

For the item "LG unsafe indication", there is a noticable difference to the checklist of the manufacturer. The manufacturer's checklist contains, as last madatory item, "FUEL CONSUMPTION (FCOM 2.18.40) .... DETERMINE. This item misses completely in the operator's manual.

end quote.

A non-secured screw on the right MLG (actuator cylinder) went loose. Thus said cylinder had an increased "work length" and prevented full retraction of landing gear.

If anyone needs some translation of specific parts, I'll try to help out.

SailorOrion
SailorOrion is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2007, 12:27
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@Green Guard

Yes ---if you mean OFP.
No---if you mean FMS. *
I don't think so, but I'm not sure, can't find any explaination in FCOM.

Guess the FMS is taking FF/FQ into acount for the next waypoint, thereafter its computations are considering a clean ship. Passing the next waypoint, same thing and so on... Therefore estimates of arrival fuel change every waypoint to a lower value.
hetfield is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2007, 12:42
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm ready to be accused of being simplistic, although I am only training for my ATPL. However... isn't it all a bit obvious? Even I know that flight with large bits of metal and rubber extended aren't going to help your fuel consumption. I find it utterly amazing that the pilots concerned tried to blame the FMS! It sound like utter complacency to me.
Wouldn't a simple "gross error check" have identified the problem quite early on?
D O Guerrero is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.