Qantas B744 Total electrical failure?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: EGSS
Age: 62
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THE FACTS......30 mins of power left 15 mins from runway.
That gives you 15 mins to play your favourite cd whilst taxying to stand.
The apu on the 747 cannot be started whilst in flight.
There are backup analogue instruments ie altimeter /compass which are pitot driven and do not require power.
The twonkletwat at the Daily Mail that suggests a ditch into the ocean is a prudent decision with 300 tonnes of alluminium airliner when main power fails is clearly spending too long indoors.
That gives you 15 mins to play your favourite cd whilst taxying to stand.
The apu on the 747 cannot be started whilst in flight.
There are backup analogue instruments ie altimeter /compass which are pitot driven and do not require power.
The twonkletwat at the Daily Mail that suggests a ditch into the ocean is a prudent decision with 300 tonnes of alluminium airliner when main power fails is clearly spending too long indoors.
spannersatcx;
I haven't flown the 744 so am offering this comment for others to correct/support as the case may be.
I note some discussion re work-arounds in trying to start the APU in flight but I think working outside the AOM/FCOM even in an emergency, may (not necessarily will, mind you) cause more problems than one is attempting to resolve. That said, as an airman, one does what one needs to, to land safely. It just has to be done with sufficient knowledge of aircraft systems and the potential what-if's when one takes action outside the manual. I know it's been done with successful outcomes so this most definitely is not a "tut-tut" comment here - That said, I would offer that an unsuccessful attempt to start the APU may, because there is no provision for this in the design of the aircraft, immediately deplete the batteries to the point where no electrical power is available at all. It would be up to the crew to decide on the course of action with a view to potential outcomes.
Re starting the APU before flight, well, the crew didn't know they were going to have a problem so I think that's a non-starter...
In MEL situations however, that document would cover the circumstances when the APU would be required and started before departure. I doubt if one u/s generator would require the APU to be started pre-departure, but perhaps two u/s generators might, (assuming departure is permitted under the MEL).
In the Airbus A320/330/340 fleet types, total loss of electrical power is an emergency "of the first order" because because the aircraft type is fully electrical, being fbw, [fly-by-wire].
The Airbus APU can be started in-flight but from the aircraft batteries. The A330/340 types have dedicated batteries to start the APU.
From an A340-300 AOM, APU chapter 2.49.10:
• It backs up the Electrical system
Try and start the APU if possible and you will loose screens etc.
I note some discussion re work-arounds in trying to start the APU in flight but I think working outside the AOM/FCOM even in an emergency, may (not necessarily will, mind you) cause more problems than one is attempting to resolve. That said, as an airman, one does what one needs to, to land safely. It just has to be done with sufficient knowledge of aircraft systems and the potential what-if's when one takes action outside the manual. I know it's been done with successful outcomes so this most definitely is not a "tut-tut" comment here - That said, I would offer that an unsuccessful attempt to start the APU may, because there is no provision for this in the design of the aircraft, immediately deplete the batteries to the point where no electrical power is available at all. It would be up to the crew to decide on the course of action with a view to potential outcomes.
Re starting the APU before flight, well, the crew didn't know they were going to have a problem so I think that's a non-starter...
In MEL situations however, that document would cover the circumstances when the APU would be required and started before departure. I doubt if one u/s generator would require the APU to be started pre-departure, but perhaps two u/s generators might, (assuming departure is permitted under the MEL).
In the Airbus A320/330/340 fleet types, total loss of electrical power is an emergency "of the first order" because because the aircraft type is fully electrical, being fbw, [fly-by-wire].
The Airbus APU can be started in-flight but from the aircraft batteries. The A330/340 types have dedicated batteries to start the APU.
From an A340-300 AOM, APU chapter 2.49.10:
In Flight
• It backs up the Electrical system
• It backs up the Air conditioning
• It can be used to start the engines
The APU may obtain power for starting from the batteries specifically assigned to the APU, or in combination with the external power, or from normal aircraft supply. APU start is permitted throughout the normal flight envelope, except when APU battery only is supplying.
• It can be used to start the engines
The APU may obtain power for starting from the batteries specifically assigned to the APU, or in combination with the external power, or from normal aircraft supply. APU start is permitted throughout the normal flight envelope, except when APU battery only is supplying.
All this to provide a bit of background. This is a serious, (although one-time incident) for the 744 and will obviously be examined carefully.
Last edited by PJ2; 9th Jan 2008 at 17:23.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
All this talk about firing up the APU
Can someone please explain what an APU is supposed to have been able to do? My understanding is that the things wot make the electricity - four ruddy great RB211s - were still merrily turning; the problem was that things downstream had been fried. So you could have eight engines, two APUs and a RAT going and it wouldn't have made a scrap of difference.
Or have I got it wrong?
p7lot,
Has this made the Mail? I haven't seen it. Doubtless there's a reference to the pilot grimly wrestling with the controls as he struggled to prevent the stricken aircraft from its death-plunge into a school attached to an orphanage and the hospital next door.
Or have I got it wrong?
p7lot,
Has this made the Mail? I haven't seen it. Doubtless there's a reference to the pilot grimly wrestling with the controls as he struggled to prevent the stricken aircraft from its death-plunge into a school attached to an orphanage and the hospital next door.
Last edited by Taildragger67; 9th Jan 2008 at 17:15. Reason: 'upstream' changed to 'downstream'
Taildragger67;
No, you don't have it wrong (so far as our understanding of the event goes as taken from the reports).
The talk of starting the APU etc, is irrelevant precisely because of the nature of the problem. It wouldn't have solved a thing. There was no Boeing procedure for the problem and for the crew with very limited time, no fix, only a requirement to maintain safe flight and land ASAP.
No, you don't have it wrong (so far as our understanding of the event goes as taken from the reports).
The talk of starting the APU etc, is irrelevant precisely because of the nature of the problem. It wouldn't have solved a thing. There was no Boeing procedure for the problem and for the crew with very limited time, no fix, only a requirement to maintain safe flight and land ASAP.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: EGSS
Age: 62
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The apu is for Ground power such as air con lights etc and on the 747/400 is particulally usefull as it allows you to start two engines at a time.
Daily Mail link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811
Daily Mail link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Taildragger67
Clockwork AHs are gyro-run....
Never heard the expression, yet I worked for the place that made about 80% of those used world-wide at one time.
In those days they ran off 115V AC from a small inverter on the 28V DC essential bus, and when that went, the high inertia of the gyro kept it going for another five minutes or so.
From what I've seen the latest ones use LCD screens, that consume very little power, and hence the gyro no longer needs to drive a mechanical display.
So you could probably power them with a tiny generator driven by a clockwork motor (like in old wind-up gramophones). Just wind it up every few minutes.
Ah, maybe I should patent the idea.....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldnt affect a Classic!!
Well at least on a Classic 747 you can connect a turning genny directly to the ESS AC bus and then to the Standby Bus.....so power as long as the engine turns......but of course need a Flt Engineer for that....remember them?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747 Galley Drains
I am a crew member (cabin) on these planes, and can tell you if Airbus think they are the first to have a water feature they are well wrong.
We have blocked drains all over these planes water pours from all the Ice areas on landing. It flows in great amounts from the forward galley from coffee brewers, ice draws and drains. (onto the floor) The economy Galley OMG it some times floods the back of E zone half way down the cabin.
We also have it running from condensation in the air-conditioning when aircraft sits on the ground somewhere hot, and runs all over passengers. The upper deck drains block and drips onto passengers on the main deck.
All the ice draws have drains but get blocked especially from the plastic bags.
We write these thing up but alas never time to fix as aircraft working so hard.
The crack in the tray that collects the water........ funny this happened on landing this is when our water features seem to start....
We have blocked drains all over these planes water pours from all the Ice areas on landing. It flows in great amounts from the forward galley from coffee brewers, ice draws and drains. (onto the floor) The economy Galley OMG it some times floods the back of E zone half way down the cabin.
We also have it running from condensation in the air-conditioning when aircraft sits on the ground somewhere hot, and runs all over passengers. The upper deck drains block and drips onto passengers on the main deck.
All the ice draws have drains but get blocked especially from the plastic bags.
We write these thing up but alas never time to fix as aircraft working so hard.
The crack in the tray that collects the water........ funny this happened on landing this is when our water features seem to start....
Psychophysiological entity
Yep, that head banging thingie seems appropriate.
You might be surprised to know that a couple of pilots that I have flown with did not realize that you couldn't use a bubble / level device. One was young and inexperienced, but the other was one of my captains in the 60s.
Another soon to be captain, assured me that he could fly without (gyro) instruments. "I know, I've done it." he said, as he stomped off.
In my last cry for some totally independent, last-ditch, means of saving the aircraft, I mentioned the cell-phone, y'know, just a few $100 toys could save the day if the crew had the gumption to use them. It's just that turn information. It has to be fast, easy to interpret, and very, very independent.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...ip#post2867719
You might be surprised to know that a couple of pilots that I have flown with did not realize that you couldn't use a bubble / level device. One was young and inexperienced, but the other was one of my captains in the 60s.
Another soon to be captain, assured me that he could fly without (gyro) instruments. "I know, I've done it." he said, as he stomped off.
In my last cry for some totally independent, last-ditch, means of saving the aircraft, I mentioned the cell-phone, y'know, just a few $100 toys could save the day if the crew had the gumption to use them. It's just that turn information. It has to be fast, easy to interpret, and very, very independent.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...ip#post2867719
I recently raised an eyebrow (on another thread) about pilots who seem to think that hand-flying a visual circuit in a large aircraft was, at the very least abnormal, and could even be considered dangerous.
I know for a fact that some of the respondees to that thread and who were obviously complete afficionados of the totally automatic aircraft and who decried the very idea of hand-flying large aircraft are currently flying Boeing 744 aircraft aircraft for the world's favourite airline.
In view of this "unthinkable event" is there any hope at all that they might like to rethink their attitudes?
A few years ago one of my friends was confronted with the unthinkable electrical scenario. To cut a long story short, a simple generator failure resulted in an IMMEDIATE degradation of the electrical system straight through several levels of redundancies and he found himself (within a minute) on emergency power with just 30 minutes of battery remaining! (There was a double problem in the electrical system).
This, of course, should not happen but it DID (it was not a 747). The QRH did not help at all but luckily the crew were good at hand-flying AND "thinking outside the box" and were therefore able to get some AC electrics back before landing.
If you don't think that it can happen, then you are quite simply wrong and if you think that it cannot happen to YOU, then you are quite simply stupid and you should therefore reconsider your chosen career.
It is always the bizarre that can kill people in aeroplanes. The QRH is not the answer to every problem and the closest that I have ever come to dying in a large aeroplane was certainly not even covered as a possibility in that wonderful book that so many of you think is the answer to all of your prayers.
I know for a fact that some of the respondees to that thread and who were obviously complete afficionados of the totally automatic aircraft and who decried the very idea of hand-flying large aircraft are currently flying Boeing 744 aircraft aircraft for the world's favourite airline.
In view of this "unthinkable event" is there any hope at all that they might like to rethink their attitudes?
A few years ago one of my friends was confronted with the unthinkable electrical scenario. To cut a long story short, a simple generator failure resulted in an IMMEDIATE degradation of the electrical system straight through several levels of redundancies and he found himself (within a minute) on emergency power with just 30 minutes of battery remaining! (There was a double problem in the electrical system).
This, of course, should not happen but it DID (it was not a 747). The QRH did not help at all but luckily the crew were good at hand-flying AND "thinking outside the box" and were therefore able to get some AC electrics back before landing.
If you don't think that it can happen, then you are quite simply wrong and if you think that it cannot happen to YOU, then you are quite simply stupid and you should therefore reconsider your chosen career.
It is always the bizarre that can kill people in aeroplanes. The QRH is not the answer to every problem and the closest that I have ever come to dying in a large aeroplane was certainly not even covered as a possibility in that wonderful book that so many of you think is the answer to all of your prayers.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@JW411
Yeah totally agree with you, hand-flying / visual skills are of great importance in our flying computer machines. Sometimes it can go very fast to have them available.
In the A300 we have only one ILS-Control pnl. If it
off, you have no ILS at all!?
One day that happened. No other approach available, but we have seen the runway 20 miles out. The young lady sitting next to me started to smile and flew a very precise approach to an airport we are not flying that often.
Keep your skills up!
S... can happen pretty fast.
Yeah totally agree with you, hand-flying / visual skills are of great importance in our flying computer machines. Sometimes it can go very fast to have them available.
In the A300 we have only one ILS-Control pnl. If it
off, you have no ILS at all!?One day that happened. No other approach available, but we have seen the runway 20 miles out. The young lady sitting next to me started to smile and flew a very precise approach to an airport we are not flying that often.
Keep your skills up!
S... can happen pretty fast.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that the 747's APU can not be started inflight, and in this incident even trying to start the APU would have been the WRONG thing to do. Because they would have had to use the battery to try and start the APU. They needed all the battery power they had for more important things.
apu starting
Sounds like the crew in question did a great job and fully deserve a pat on the back! Speaking of starting the APU in flight on the 744, had a wee play in the sim a few months back, thinking of exactly this situation and yes, at the least in the sim it can be done. After taking all the gens offline and being down to standby power, we pulled the ' grnd safety ' cb , thereby tricking the aircraft into thinking it was on the ground.
Yes there is a limitation on starting in flight, and just because it started ok in the sim dosen't mean it'll behave during start in flight! And as spanners pointed out things may go REALLY dark on the flight deck when you suck all the juice out of the batt's during the start attempt! And you are bound to end up with lots of other issues resulting from the complete powerdown of the jet
.
However, on a very dark moonless and stormy night, in IMC, and 3 hours from anywhere remotely resembling an airfield, it may be time to starting thinking outside the QRH.
Can it be done? Maybe , should it be done? Thats what the guy/girl in the front left seat gets paid to decide!
Buggs out
Speaking of starting the APU in flight on the 744, had a wee play in the sim a few months back, thinking of exactly this situation and yes, at the least in the sim it can be done. After taking all the gens offline and being down to standby power, we pulled the ' grnd safety ' cb , thereby tricking the aircraft into thinking it was on the ground. Yes there is a limitation on starting in flight, and just because it started ok in the sim dosen't mean it'll behave during start in flight! And as spanners pointed out things may go REALLY dark on the flight deck when you suck all the juice out of the batt's during the start attempt! And you are bound to end up with lots of other issues resulting from the complete powerdown of the jet
.However, on a very dark moonless and stormy night, in IMC, and 3 hours from anywhere remotely resembling an airfield, it may be time to starting thinking outside the QRH.
Can it be done? Maybe , should it be done? Thats what the guy/girl in the front left seat gets paid to decide!
Buggs out
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standby AH
Dick Smith, speaking just now on Oz radio, and nominated as an Aviation Safety Campaignor, said that for backup when flying his twin engined jet he carries a "hand held GPS which can tell me which way is UP".
This must be a giant leap in technology and I MUST get one.
Gyros on the way out?
Trouble with the "wind up clockwork gyro" is that one would have to set it going whilst you were already right side UP. That requires that you still have visual or alternate reference to which way is up.
Anyone know about Dick's GPS?
Dick Smith, speaking just now on Oz radio, and nominated as an Aviation Safety Campaignor, said that for backup when flying his twin engined jet he carries a "hand held GPS which can tell me which way is UP".
This must be a giant leap in technology and I MUST get one.
Gyros on the way out?
Trouble with the "wind up clockwork gyro" is that one would have to set it going whilst you were already right side UP. That requires that you still have visual or alternate reference to which way is up.
Anyone know about Dick's GPS?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spoke yesterday to an engineer who'd been reading the initial tech log writeups on this incident (pages and pages of them, he said). As far as I can tell so far:
1. Drain blocked in galley. Overflows.
2. Crack underneath, allows liquid to get through.
3. Generator/electrical/contactor control panel beneath this area.
4. Entire electrical system taken out (all generators, etc).
5. Crew on standby intruments and battery power only.
Some additional things about the 747-400.
1. The APU will run inflight, as long as it is started on the ground.
2. It cannot be started inflight. A relay controlled by air/ground logic prevents power being applied to the APU door actuator inflight.
I'm not sure whether the crew were VMC or IMC or day or night at the time, but flying on battery with only the standby AI, standby airspeed, and standby altimeter is not easy in the 747-400 (particularly the older model standby instruments - the newer standby AI is a lot better).
If the battery runs out, you've then also lost attitude reference. Somewhat of a problem if you're IMC at the time, or at night. So yes, the situation would've been extremely serious if they were in the middle of nowhere.
I too would like to know how Dick Smith's hand-held GPS tells him which way is up and gives him attitude reference. Does it have a mini-gyro in it? I've never heard of such a thing! Why aren't they on all aeroplanes?
1. Drain blocked in galley. Overflows.
2. Crack underneath, allows liquid to get through.
3. Generator/electrical/contactor control panel beneath this area.
4. Entire electrical system taken out (all generators, etc).
5. Crew on standby intruments and battery power only.
Some additional things about the 747-400.
1. The APU will run inflight, as long as it is started on the ground.
2. It cannot be started inflight. A relay controlled by air/ground logic prevents power being applied to the APU door actuator inflight.
I'm not sure whether the crew were VMC or IMC or day or night at the time, but flying on battery with only the standby AI, standby airspeed, and standby altimeter is not easy in the 747-400 (particularly the older model standby instruments - the newer standby AI is a lot better).
If the battery runs out, you've then also lost attitude reference. Somewhat of a problem if you're IMC at the time, or at night. So yes, the situation would've been extremely serious if they were in the middle of nowhere.
I too would like to know how Dick Smith's hand-held GPS tells him which way is up and gives him attitude reference. Does it have a mini-gyro in it? I've never heard of such a thing! Why aren't they on all aeroplanes?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't you have a GPS handheld with gyro? MONEY.
I remember when FEDEX wanted to get the COMPASS on the MEL list...yes, you could dispatch without a compass. The FAA actually said no on that one.
Kudos to the crew and too damn bad a huge plane with such redundency up the wazoo can be almost be brought down by overflowing water.
cheap...its all money boys and girls!
I remember when FEDEX wanted to get the COMPASS on the MEL list...yes, you could dispatch without a compass. The FAA actually said no on that one.
Kudos to the crew and too damn bad a huge plane with such redundency up the wazoo can be almost be brought down by overflowing water.
cheap...its all money boys and girls!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The newer standby AI is in fact called the ISFD - Integrated Standby Flight Director. It is a mini PFD and is a much better than the old round standby instruments. I seem to recall it has 1 hour's power?
Starting the APU would take too much from the batteries and would involve fooling the a/c into being on the ground. Since the 747 has been operational for 38 years, presumably Boeing's engineers have looked carefully into the pro's and cons of allowing an air start of the APU, and so far decided there is no advantage.
Starting the APU would take too much from the batteries and would involve fooling the a/c into being on the ground. Since the 747 has been operational for 38 years, presumably Boeing's engineers have looked carefully into the pro's and cons of allowing an air start of the APU, and so far decided there is no advantage.