Qantas B744 Total electrical failure?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QFUK
Did you not report it?
I remember many years ago one poor FA was crushed to death in a lift incident,
interlocks were not functioning correctly and up it came.
If it is broke, report it!!
and also the door allowed me into the lift shaft witht he lift being at the Upper deck level while i was on the main deck
I remember many years ago one poor FA was crushed to death in a lift incident,
interlocks were not functioning correctly and up it came.
If it is broke, report it!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: LHR
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to water at the bottom of the lift shaft, this could be due to the grey water drain system backing up from the FWD drain mast or pipe blockage upstream of the mast. When this happens, water from the fwd lav sinks and galleys fill the drain pipes and they back feed up through the floor drains located in the galley cart stowages and lift compartment( as they are the lowest open points in the system). This is usually picked up by the cabin crew as wet carpets around the galleys. It could be due to the fore mentioned ribbon heater failing. Usually the rubber tube ruptures as it expands with ice and you get waste water spilling into the wing to body fairings and a dirty stain down the belly panels. In bad cases there is an ice build up on the exterior of the panels on arrival. We check the ribbon heaters by spraying the ribbon heater thermostat with freezer spray on A checks.
On two of our aircraft, the galley system installed has a "drain down" cock next to the water isolation cock in the galley. It is for maintenance use only and is supposed to have a flap covering it with a screw securing it. Twice, in my experience, the cock has been opened during flt allowing the pressurised potable water to flow feely into the drain system. This has two effects, one is that flight runs out of water within a couple of hours and the second is that the drain system is deluged and back flows out of the floor drains. On one occasion water ingressed into the MEC and effected a couple of LRUs due to a silted up drip tray drain tube.
Of course, the lift shaft water could just be from a cart spillage and a blocked floor drain. It is pretty mucky in there.
Apologises if this info has already been mentioned, I did not go back over all the pages of this thread.
On two of our aircraft, the galley system installed has a "drain down" cock next to the water isolation cock in the galley. It is for maintenance use only and is supposed to have a flap covering it with a screw securing it. Twice, in my experience, the cock has been opened during flt allowing the pressurised potable water to flow feely into the drain system. This has two effects, one is that flight runs out of water within a couple of hours and the second is that the drain system is deluged and back flows out of the floor drains. On one occasion water ingressed into the MEC and effected a couple of LRUs due to a silted up drip tray drain tube.
Of course, the lift shaft water could just be from a cart spillage and a blocked floor drain. It is pretty mucky in there.
Apologises if this info has already been mentioned, I did not go back over all the pages of this thread.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody earlier on quoted a 1 to 1.5cm diameter for the galley drains.....
Jeez... maybe for the design they should have called in the local plumber, instead of 'design' engineers.
A few remarks.
- Typical domestic sink drains are about 4cm diameter, so unless you start throwing in solid objects (such as tea bags, e.g.), coffee grounds and suchlike generally get through.
- Unless you keep hammering in the notion, of how 'fragile' the galley drains are, all the time, cabin staff will treat the galley sink as their kitchen sink, which they know can take a bit of abuse.
- What are these little "chopper" devices called that 'mulch' everything thrown down the sink? Many American sinks have them, being connected to small-bore drains. They're rare in Europe, which is why I can't remember what they're called. Why don't all galley sinks have them?
- As to the happy bacteria, products like 'DeStop' or 'Domestos' put an end to them in domestic drains. What is being used in aircraft systems?
Maybe aircraft plumbing designers consider themselves to be at the bottom of the totem pole, and just don't bother?
Or maybe the personnel dealing with those systems have the same kind of inferiority complex?
Considering how much damage has been done over the years by leaking and overflowing plumbing in aircraft, maybe it's time the mentality changed?
Jeez... maybe for the design they should have called in the local plumber, instead of 'design' engineers.
A few remarks.
- Typical domestic sink drains are about 4cm diameter, so unless you start throwing in solid objects (such as tea bags, e.g.), coffee grounds and suchlike generally get through.
- Unless you keep hammering in the notion, of how 'fragile' the galley drains are, all the time, cabin staff will treat the galley sink as their kitchen sink, which they know can take a bit of abuse.
- What are these little "chopper" devices called that 'mulch' everything thrown down the sink? Many American sinks have them, being connected to small-bore drains. They're rare in Europe, which is why I can't remember what they're called. Why don't all galley sinks have them?
- As to the happy bacteria, products like 'DeStop' or 'Domestos' put an end to them in domestic drains. What is being used in aircraft systems?
Maybe aircraft plumbing designers consider themselves to be at the bottom of the totem pole, and just don't bother?
Or maybe the personnel dealing with those systems have the same kind of inferiority complex?
Considering how much damage has been done over the years by leaking and overflowing plumbing in aircraft, maybe it's time the mentality changed?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trusty InSinkErator is what you are thinking of.
One of many makes, no doubt.
Problem = weight
The problem is by now so old, that I would have thought a few added pounds of weight, to eliminate a problem costing lots of money elsewhere, would have made its way throught the system.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As previously mentioned on PPRuNe, the aircraft version of the "InSinkErator" is called the GWAD. Later aircraft are fitted with these devices and use the toilet vacuum system to get rid of the waste.
Unfortunately, the GWAD breaks down like any other form of galley equipment. The more complex something is, the more likely it is to break, especially if it is abused.
Re the fungus in the pipes... I wouldn't be surprised if milk and orange juice were the culprits. They curdle really well together... and you end up with something with the consistency (and perhaps the biodiversity) of yoghurt.
White vinegar and ice are used for the toilets... I'm not sure what is used in the galley drains, if anything. Putting chlorine-based products in aircraft drains is probably not a very good idea.... it tends to corrode some of the more exotic metals used in aircraft construction 
Unfortunately, the GWAD breaks down like any other form of galley equipment. The more complex something is, the more likely it is to break, especially if it is abused.
Re the fungus in the pipes... I wouldn't be surprised if milk and orange juice were the culprits. They curdle really well together... and you end up with something with the consistency (and perhaps the biodiversity) of yoghurt.
- As to the happy bacteria, products like 'DeStop' or 'Domestos' put an end to them in domestic drains. What is being used in aircraft systems?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stockholm Sweden
Age: 74
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White vinegar and ice are used for the toilets... I'm not sure what is used in the galley drains,
We have a product called AES that we pour down the drains. It is some sort of biological cleaner that is meant to break down the gunge that grows in the drains. It seems to work, but don't know how well. It takes its time so we pour it down at night and leave it. Seems to do the trick.
We have a product called AES that we pour down the drains. It is some sort of biological cleaner that is meant to break down the gunge that grows in the drains. It seems to work, but don't know how well. It takes its time so we pour it down at night and leave it. Seems to do the trick.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
had cracked drip shields and how long they were there undetected
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: REAL WORLD
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
after reading
some of the posts here regarding blockages has someone also taken into consideration that wine bottles are iced in the ice draws. as the ice melts some of the wine label carrying glue also sometimes come off. paper& glue seems to me another contributing factor.
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mrpaxing,
Yes, the drain in the wine cooling bins blocks much faster. What I was trying to say was even the bins which are used for the "drinks" ice need their drains flushing.
(I hope at your watering hole they do not use ice from the wine cooling bins in your drink)
has someone also taken into consideration that wine bottles are iced in the ice draws.
(I hope at your watering hole they do not use ice from the wine cooling bins in your drink)
Qantas had better be on guard for investigative TV crews attempting to "dig up dirt" on their flights, if this item from crikey.com.au has any truth:
It seems that a current affairs or news special unit worked out that marching on board with a full production crew might be unsubtle, so they've resorted to using tiny cameras and available light to capture the evidence both on jets and in the Sydney and Melbourne terminals.....
The Channel Seven report is believed to be looking for more evidence of Qantas keeping dirty and potentially dangerous jets in service because of "lack of capacity" to deal with demand when professional standards of maintenance would see them cleaned up with special attention to plumbing and electrical systems.
The Channel Seven report is believed to be looking for more evidence of Qantas keeping dirty and potentially dangerous jets in service because of "lack of capacity" to deal with demand when professional standards of maintenance would see them cleaned up with special attention to plumbing and electrical systems.
Seems to me way to much talk about a minor malfunction (Blocked drains, leaks and dirty planes)
The issue should be on barriers between these common malfunctions and the loss of all electrical power.
The issue should be on barriers between these common malfunctions and the loss of all electrical power.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From today's SMH:
ATSB VH-OJM Preliminary Report
Qantas crack scare
February 19, 2008 - 5:53PM
Smell stops flight
Super jumbo glitch
Qantas has suffered another blemish to its once gold-plated safety record, after air safety investigators revealed the airline found cracks in the "drip shields" on nearly half of its 747 fleet.
The Australian Transport and Safety Bureau today reported Qantas found cracks in 14 of its 30 Boeing 747s, similar to those on a jet which lost nearly all of its electrical power on approach to Bangkok on January 7.
However, the ATSB said its preliminary investigations indicated "the event was less serious than first reported".
It referred to the "initial reports" that the jet "had sustained system failures resulting in the loss of all alternating electrical power".
But it said one of the jet's four "alternate current buses" - or power generation units - was still operable, along with some systems powered by batteries, giving the jet enough power to land safely.
The regulator dismissed earlier reports the jet had relied solely on battery power.
The loss of power occurred after the crack led water to leak from a sink into the forward galley of the plane and then into three electrical generator control units.
The ATSB said the leak was first reported when the jet was on descent to Bangkok at 21,000 feet.
Cabin crew attempted to soak up the water that covered the entire galley floor using five blankets. The ATSB said crew reported that the water was "smelly".
Minutes later, the jet's auto-pilot was disengaged, the first officer's displays were "blanked" and three of the jets four power units lost power.
All of the cabin lights were extinguished and radio transmissions were also "less than normal".
"The captain's primary flight display, navigation display, and some other instruments were available in a degraded mode," the ATSB report said. "Standby instruments and the aircraft's instrument landing system were also available."
Around 27 minutes after the aircraft first showed signs of losing electrical power, the jet landed safely with its 365 passengers and crew.
A Qantas spokeswoman said the airline had fixed the cracks discovered on its other 747s.
"Qantas has also issued a directive requiring cabin and flight crews to treat and report abnormal water accumulation in galley areas," she said.
Qantas said it plans to help safety regulators in their ongoing investigations.
"It's inappropriate to comment further until these investigations have been concluded," the spokeswoman said.
February 19, 2008 - 5:53PM
Smell stops flight
Super jumbo glitch
Qantas has suffered another blemish to its once gold-plated safety record, after air safety investigators revealed the airline found cracks in the "drip shields" on nearly half of its 747 fleet.
The Australian Transport and Safety Bureau today reported Qantas found cracks in 14 of its 30 Boeing 747s, similar to those on a jet which lost nearly all of its electrical power on approach to Bangkok on January 7.
However, the ATSB said its preliminary investigations indicated "the event was less serious than first reported".
It referred to the "initial reports" that the jet "had sustained system failures resulting in the loss of all alternating electrical power".
But it said one of the jet's four "alternate current buses" - or power generation units - was still operable, along with some systems powered by batteries, giving the jet enough power to land safely.
The regulator dismissed earlier reports the jet had relied solely on battery power.
The loss of power occurred after the crack led water to leak from a sink into the forward galley of the plane and then into three electrical generator control units.
The ATSB said the leak was first reported when the jet was on descent to Bangkok at 21,000 feet.
Cabin crew attempted to soak up the water that covered the entire galley floor using five blankets. The ATSB said crew reported that the water was "smelly".
Minutes later, the jet's auto-pilot was disengaged, the first officer's displays were "blanked" and three of the jets four power units lost power.
All of the cabin lights were extinguished and radio transmissions were also "less than normal".
"The captain's primary flight display, navigation display, and some other instruments were available in a degraded mode," the ATSB report said. "Standby instruments and the aircraft's instrument landing system were also available."
Around 27 minutes after the aircraft first showed signs of losing electrical power, the jet landed safely with its 365 passengers and crew.
A Qantas spokeswoman said the airline had fixed the cracks discovered on its other 747s.
"Qantas has also issued a directive requiring cabin and flight crews to treat and report abnormal water accumulation in galley areas," she said.
Qantas said it plans to help safety regulators in their ongoing investigations.
"It's inappropriate to comment further until these investigations have been concluded," the spokeswoman said.
QF2 power failure "less serious than first reported". Really?
Article this afternoon from www.crikey.com.au
QF2 power failure "less serious than first reported". Really?
Ben Sandilands writes:
The once independent and fearless Australian Transport Safety Bureau has declared that the power failure experienced by Qantas flight QF2 on descent into Bangkok on 7 January was "less serious than first reported".
Such a relief. The jet with 365 people on board was merely down to one quarter of its generated power supply and relying on a battery which was certain to fail within minutes of a fortuitous broad daylight touch down on a proper runway it already had in sight.
As revealed in the report, the flight was operating with degraded flight controls and incomplete or compromised instrumentation.
Qantas pilots tell us that once the battery died, the 747-400, had it been over Antarctica, where it was on New Year’s Day, or in night conditions over India, or just a little bit further away from Bangkok, would have been in diabolical trouble.
So why would the ATSB so obsequiously peddle the "less serious than first reported" line which in fact originated from Qantas telling the media that a total failure of the electrical distribution system has occurred in a jet which the investigator now describes as awash with “dirty” and “smelly water.”
Is this apparently gratuitous attempt to downplay an exceptionally serious and continuing investigation motivated by the same thinking that saw the ATSB decide not to investigate the pumping of lethal nitrogen gas into supplementary oxygen packs intended for use in Qantas aircraft by maintenance staff in Melbourne last October?
Or is it just the gutlessness that saw it decline to investigate the illegal continuation of a REX flight on a single engine with more than 30 passengers on board from Wagga Wagga to Sydney in the same month after the other engine failed after take off.
The new Minister for Transport, Anthony Albanese, has taken over a portfolio which was declining into a dangerous farce under his Coalition predecessor Mark Vaile, who was ineffectual in curbing serious failures in the public administration of air safety by CASA, the regulator, and the ATSB, the investigator.
Will the minister listen to soothing voices telling him everything is alright, or will he enforce the full intent and purpose of the aviation safety laws?
Serious questions have arisen which CASA, the safety regulator, is ignoring. Why are decrepit, dirty, smelly Qantas jets being kept aloft when they should be kept clean and dry and thus safe from the risks of mixing electricity and water?
Is the system of Minimum Equipment Lists, which allow jets to remain in service with a number of defects, being abused?
Are the managers who insist on jets remaining in service when they ought to be more thoroughly maintained out of touch with maintenance and flight standards personnel who understand safety issues?
How did Qantas get into a situation where 14 out of 30 Boeing 747s (of varying models and ages) all had similar defects in plumbing and the "drip shields" that protect electrical components from water?
Is the reporting of similar plumbing issues with Boeing 767s (typically used on domestic Cityflyer services) indicative of a common cause or a decline in the safety culture of the airline?
Could greed and the constant pressure by bonus-driven managers to find yet deeper and deeper layers of cost cutting be pushing Qantas into seriously risky territory?
Ben Sandilands writes:
The once independent and fearless Australian Transport Safety Bureau has declared that the power failure experienced by Qantas flight QF2 on descent into Bangkok on 7 January was "less serious than first reported".
Such a relief. The jet with 365 people on board was merely down to one quarter of its generated power supply and relying on a battery which was certain to fail within minutes of a fortuitous broad daylight touch down on a proper runway it already had in sight.
As revealed in the report, the flight was operating with degraded flight controls and incomplete or compromised instrumentation.
Qantas pilots tell us that once the battery died, the 747-400, had it been over Antarctica, where it was on New Year’s Day, or in night conditions over India, or just a little bit further away from Bangkok, would have been in diabolical trouble.
So why would the ATSB so obsequiously peddle the "less serious than first reported" line which in fact originated from Qantas telling the media that a total failure of the electrical distribution system has occurred in a jet which the investigator now describes as awash with “dirty” and “smelly water.”
Is this apparently gratuitous attempt to downplay an exceptionally serious and continuing investigation motivated by the same thinking that saw the ATSB decide not to investigate the pumping of lethal nitrogen gas into supplementary oxygen packs intended for use in Qantas aircraft by maintenance staff in Melbourne last October?
Or is it just the gutlessness that saw it decline to investigate the illegal continuation of a REX flight on a single engine with more than 30 passengers on board from Wagga Wagga to Sydney in the same month after the other engine failed after take off.
The new Minister for Transport, Anthony Albanese, has taken over a portfolio which was declining into a dangerous farce under his Coalition predecessor Mark Vaile, who was ineffectual in curbing serious failures in the public administration of air safety by CASA, the regulator, and the ATSB, the investigator.
Will the minister listen to soothing voices telling him everything is alright, or will he enforce the full intent and purpose of the aviation safety laws?
Serious questions have arisen which CASA, the safety regulator, is ignoring. Why are decrepit, dirty, smelly Qantas jets being kept aloft when they should be kept clean and dry and thus safe from the risks of mixing electricity and water?
Is the system of Minimum Equipment Lists, which allow jets to remain in service with a number of defects, being abused?
Are the managers who insist on jets remaining in service when they ought to be more thoroughly maintained out of touch with maintenance and flight standards personnel who understand safety issues?
How did Qantas get into a situation where 14 out of 30 Boeing 747s (of varying models and ages) all had similar defects in plumbing and the "drip shields" that protect electrical components from water?
Is the reporting of similar plumbing issues with Boeing 767s (typically used on domestic Cityflyer services) indicative of a common cause or a decline in the safety culture of the airline?
Could greed and the constant pressure by bonus-driven managers to find yet deeper and deeper layers of cost cutting be pushing Qantas into seriously risky territory?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How did Qantas get into a situation where 14 out of 30 Boeing 747s (of varying models and ages) all had similar defects in plumbing and the "drip shields" that protect electrical components from water?
The fault may very well be put down to poor design. The cracks are probably due to flexing as a result of large temperature variations. Regular inspection of this area is very difficult, because the shields are sandwiched between the cabin floor and the aircraft computers.
Perhaps Boeing need to recommend that inspection of the devices/components which led to the incident to be carried out more often and with more depth ... and engineers should be informed of the importance of the individual devices (specifically, their role in a much bigger picture).
Incidentally, this incident has already highlighted a flaw in the Boeing Maintenance Manual. It doesn't tell you which way around to mount the thermistor (heat sensor) on the plumbing for the drain masts (an integral part of the galley drain anti-icing system).
Rgds.
NSEU
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ben Sandilands writes:
Another gem of journalistic ignorance of by the sensationalist mob from Crikey.com. The report did not mention any degredation of flight controls, nor was most of the rest of the article of any relevance to the Qantas incident.
P.S. Too bad he didn't read today's Daily Telegraph reporting a Qantas Link Dash 8 landing without nosegear at Rockhampton that actually never happened. Apparently they carried out an alternate nose gear extension and the flight landed without incident,
As revealed in the report, the flight was operating with degraded flight controls
P.S. Too bad he didn't read today's Daily Telegraph reporting a Qantas Link Dash 8 landing without nosegear at Rockhampton that actually never happened. Apparently they carried out an alternate nose gear extension and the flight landed without incident,
Last edited by HotDog; 20th Feb 2008 at 07:58.