HF A310 accident report @ Vienna out now
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.
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.
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?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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
> 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
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 182
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
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?
- Anti skid
- SFCC
- Spoilers
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Arroyo
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Report, page 11:
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.
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
Additionnal note: From flame-out to impact they glided 12 NM.
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.
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??
"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??
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
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 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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Somewhere out there...
Posts: 215
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.
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.
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. 
Guest
Posts: n/a
FMS 'fixation',
For those with FMS 'fixation', the 'predicted' arrival fuel would have been reducing all the time
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 05:27.
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
(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
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Green Guard
Yes ---if you mean OFP.
No---if you mean FMS. *
No---if you mean FMS. *
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.
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?
Wouldn't a simple "gross error check" have identified the problem quite early on?