Loud noise aboard U.S. flight investigated
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riga
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Essentially nothing is wrong with the divert to ORD provided:
You are flying a private flight/you are the aircraft owner/you dont have PAX, Cargo or anything else requiring your consideration on board - just you and your flying machine
.
In this instance where all considerations have been reviewed with nothing betraying a more serious concern why not continue? Empirical evidence is the thing we build up over many years on type, telling us the normality or otherwise of the information coming forward. Normally this pertains to harmless issues, however (and quite correctly) we investigate (as this crew did). With no safety critical indication where was the problem in continuing?
RIX
You are flying a private flight/you are the aircraft owner/you dont have PAX, Cargo or anything else requiring your consideration on board - just you and your flying machine
.In this instance where all considerations have been reviewed with nothing betraying a more serious concern why not continue? Empirical evidence is the thing we build up over many years on type, telling us the normality or otherwise of the information coming forward. Normally this pertains to harmless issues, however (and quite correctly) we investigate (as this crew did). With no safety critical indication where was the problem in continuing?
RIX
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the BA747 that continued to London was justified in his decision and also the AA767 was also justified in his decision. Both used all sources of information available to them and decided it was safe to continue. Both flights landed safely and their judgement was sound. Sometimes it is ok to land and refuel if you are not comfortable with landing fuel. To me that is good judgement. Also continuing a flight hearing a bang and fluttering briefly and then no problem doesn't require declaring an emergency, it happens sometimes. If I returned for an emergency landing every time I heard a thump or bang or flutter, I would have not completed a lot of my flights. Non of my continuations showed anything wrong. These guys did everything right and whoever wrote that letter to the press is an idiot.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember correctly the 747 continued along from LAX towards London (rather than to London) but because the crew couldn't figure out how to manage and utilize the remaing fuel, they needlessly diverted short of London. Knowing that, my confidence in them would have been shaken regarding any judgments they made that day. I believe in safety first.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excerpt here:A flight attendant on the April 20 trip said there was "a loud shaking noise from the belly of the plane." A few minutes later, there was another noise that "sounded like an explosion," the attendant said in an e-mail, according to North Texas television station.
Full story here: LINK
Full story here: LINK
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never discourage reports from FA's but distinguishing between fact and fancy is an art the pilot learns.A while back,FA's made reports about noises from a service door.The pilot believed them and put it in the book.Maintenance checked the door and left the pressurization control in manual.The rest is history.
Never discourage reports from FA's but distinguishing between fact and fancy is an art the pilot learns.A while back,FA's made reports about noises from a service door.The pilot believed them and put it in the book.Maintenance checked the door and left the pressurization control in manual.The rest is history.
Do tell me that was made as a comment !!!
"you cannot be serious" ....... lets not have anything reported/acted upon as it may lead to something more serious .....!!
Do tell me that was made as a
comment !!!"you cannot be serious" ....... lets not have anything reported/acted upon as it may lead to something more serious .....!!
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miller774, I know I'm playing an old record; but just once more, that flight would have comfortably made it to LHR had there been a flight engineer on board.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was a lowly first officer on an ATR, back in the day. Sitting in the chocks, waiting for the SLF, captain reading a newspaper with his feet up on the panel.
One of the flight attendants, a cute little thing, came up and said, "I smell smoke in the galley."
The captain didn't shift his gaze. He said, "It's the coffee pot. It's empty."
She left. She returned a few minutes later. "I smell smoke."
This time I went back and nosed around. I smelled it too. I followed the smell out the aft door, onto the ramp. A thin pall of smoke was snaking under the belly of the plane, carried by the wind. I went around the tail, to find the ground power cart fully engulfed in fire, flames licking the right side of the fuselage.
I charged back up to the cockpit. "Dave, we're on fire!" I screamed as I yanked loose the extinguisher. I can still see to this day, him tossing the newspaper over his head behind him and flailing away at the overhead, shutting everything off.
We fought the fire with the halon extinguisher for awhile - everytime we stopped squirting, the flames shot back up again. Eventually a rampie (who looked like Christopher Reeve) lugged a 40 pound dry-chem bottle over from the gate and shot at it, while a brave young mechanic hooked a tug to the flaming cart and yanked it away from the aircraft.
I turned to look at the concourse. 66 people were standing with their faces pressed against the glass, watching.
I guess we should have listened to her, the first time she said, "I smell smoke."
One of the flight attendants, a cute little thing, came up and said, "I smell smoke in the galley."
The captain didn't shift his gaze. He said, "It's the coffee pot. It's empty."
She left. She returned a few minutes later. "I smell smoke."
This time I went back and nosed around. I smelled it too. I followed the smell out the aft door, onto the ramp. A thin pall of smoke was snaking under the belly of the plane, carried by the wind. I went around the tail, to find the ground power cart fully engulfed in fire, flames licking the right side of the fuselage.
I charged back up to the cockpit. "Dave, we're on fire!" I screamed as I yanked loose the extinguisher. I can still see to this day, him tossing the newspaper over his head behind him and flailing away at the overhead, shutting everything off.
We fought the fire with the halon extinguisher for awhile - everytime we stopped squirting, the flames shot back up again. Eventually a rampie (who looked like Christopher Reeve) lugged a 40 pound dry-chem bottle over from the gate and shot at it, while a brave young mechanic hooked a tug to the flaming cart and yanked it away from the aircraft.
I turned to look at the concourse. 66 people were standing with their faces pressed against the glass, watching.
I guess we should have listened to her, the first time she said, "I smell smoke."
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent story, Huck, although I expect it will be ignored by some of the younger folks here, who truly believe in the infallibility of their airplane and its computer derived indications.
What if they had diverted?
here's a question - what if they had diverted, found the panel gone, and no means of repair. Would they have taken off again?
I suspect the answer is obvious. So they were right to continue?
I suspect the answer is obvious. So they were right to continue?
Stercus Accidit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the DFW link:
Interesting, maybe that's exactly what the pilots thought when they saw the hole on arrival...
What happened with the good ol' "Better Safe Than Sorry"?
"There was no way this crew could have known this panel had departed," said the memo from Jim Kaiser, American's manager of flight operations quality control, and Chuck Harman, the airline's fleet captain for Boeing 757 and 767 planes. "If they had known, they obviously would have returned" to DFW Airport.
What happened with the good ol' "Better Safe Than Sorry"?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nicely put.
The number of posts which make free use of retrospective reasoning in this thread is remarkable. As in (and I paraphrase) .... the loss of the panel was no threat to safety, so where's the problem? Give me a break!
It is YOU GUYS who are the Monday Morning quarterbacks. Since the pilot didn't know what had caused the vibration/sound that was experienced by his crew and caused serious safety concerns (according to reports ....), he could only speculate - NOT GOOD. To fly over an ocean in such a condition is irresponsible, IMO.
A few years ago my wife and I were about 1 hr over the Atlantic at about 1 a.m. in a UA 767, Dulles to Brussels IIRC. A moderate, persistent port-side vibration suddenly started (she noticed it first), in a few minutes the pilot comes on and says we're doing a 180 and heading back to Logan. LOGAN!??, I say to my wife, why not the first available and adequate blasted RWY? (the pilot had admitted know knowing the cause, very rightly). About 15 min later the PIC comes on again and says we'll be landing at Gander instead. Very nice, and so we did.
Turned out to be the air intake panel under the left wing was loose (bolt had sheared) - the vibration stopped about 10 miles out as the airspeed went below some critical value. Another 767 was flown in and we took off in that 4 hours later. That woman did a superb job as PIC and I hope the rest of you would do the same but I'm not so sure .....
IMO heavy metal drivers shouldn't speculate as to cause of the disturbance in such situations. If you don't know what has happened with reasonable certainly, bring her down ASAP (within reason) and accept the thanks of your pax. I'm a GA driver and what do I know? is what many of you will think and respond I daresay. Well guys and gals, do you always get it right sitting there in front? Cannot an experienced professional crew member bring information to you that you otherwise would not be aware of, and cause you to end the flight early for a safety assessment? Why was this not one of those occasions?
Have to say I've detected a somewhat supercilious attitude towards FAs in some posts in this forum and another professional pilot forum. Is that possible, or am I just dissing some of you guys?
Respectfully,
Charles.
ASEL, IR (and not even complex at that ......
)
*dons flame-proof suit*
The number of posts which make free use of retrospective reasoning in this thread is remarkable. As in (and I paraphrase) .... the loss of the panel was no threat to safety, so where's the problem? Give me a break!
It is YOU GUYS who are the Monday Morning quarterbacks. Since the pilot didn't know what had caused the vibration/sound that was experienced by his crew and caused serious safety concerns (according to reports ....), he could only speculate - NOT GOOD. To fly over an ocean in such a condition is irresponsible, IMO.
A few years ago my wife and I were about 1 hr over the Atlantic at about 1 a.m. in a UA 767, Dulles to Brussels IIRC. A moderate, persistent port-side vibration suddenly started (she noticed it first), in a few minutes the pilot comes on and says we're doing a 180 and heading back to Logan. LOGAN!??, I say to my wife, why not the first available and adequate blasted RWY? (the pilot had admitted know knowing the cause, very rightly). About 15 min later the PIC comes on again and says we'll be landing at Gander instead. Very nice, and so we did.
Turned out to be the air intake panel under the left wing was loose (bolt had sheared) - the vibration stopped about 10 miles out as the airspeed went below some critical value. Another 767 was flown in and we took off in that 4 hours later. That woman did a superb job as PIC and I hope the rest of you would do the same but I'm not so sure .....
IMO heavy metal drivers shouldn't speculate as to cause of the disturbance in such situations. If you don't know what has happened with reasonable certainly, bring her down ASAP (within reason) and accept the thanks of your pax. I'm a GA driver and what do I know? is what many of you will think and respond I daresay. Well guys and gals, do you always get it right sitting there in front? Cannot an experienced professional crew member bring information to you that you otherwise would not be aware of, and cause you to end the flight early for a safety assessment? Why was this not one of those occasions?
Have to say I've detected a somewhat supercilious attitude towards FAs in some posts in this forum and another professional pilot forum. Is that possible, or am I just dissing some of you guys?
Respectfully,
Charles.
ASEL, IR (and not even complex at that ......
)*dons flame-proof suit*
Last edited by SDFlyer; 11th May 2008 at 16:01.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continuing without the AC panel was not unsafe. It came off because the latch failed accelerating above 10,000 ft. They did everything properly and the flight was in no danger. The wacko flight attendant who wrote to the press was the only danger to this flight. What would she do if the captain told her to do something in an emergency and she decided she had a better idea so wasn't going to do it. That is what worries me. She needs counseling.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: YQL
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A surprisingly reasonable and supportive news report from MSNBC on AA 48.
* The reporter "Tom Costello" indicates that they heard a rumbling and then a loud noise.
* The "3 pilots in the cockpit" discussed the situation and called their Maintenance Base.
* There were no warnings from the gauges and the "flight dynamics" were normal.
* They decided it was a cargo shift and decided to continue on.
* If they made an emergency landing at Dallas they had an excess of 100,000 pounds of fuel, and would have had to dump 60 to 90,000 pounds to land.
* At the end of the flight in Paris, they were a bit ahead of time - therefore there wasn't much of a drag penalty. (and/or a nice tailwind.)
Video here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...21886#24521886
Based on the available information, the pilots and airline management used their best judgement and continued with the flight. The decision could be second guessed, but the airline supports them and at the end of the day, someone needs to make a decision, and this comes back down to the pilots. Of course things could have turned out otherwise, but that is a risk with all judgement and all decisions.
* The reporter "Tom Costello" indicates that they heard a rumbling and then a loud noise.
* The "3 pilots in the cockpit" discussed the situation and called their Maintenance Base.
* There were no warnings from the gauges and the "flight dynamics" were normal.
* They decided it was a cargo shift and decided to continue on.
* If they made an emergency landing at Dallas they had an excess of 100,000 pounds of fuel, and would have had to dump 60 to 90,000 pounds to land.
* At the end of the flight in Paris, they were a bit ahead of time - therefore there wasn't much of a drag penalty. (and/or a nice tailwind.)
Video here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...21886#24521886
Based on the available information, the pilots and airline management used their best judgement and continued with the flight. The decision could be second guessed, but the airline supports them and at the end of the day, someone needs to make a decision, and this comes back down to the pilots. Of course things could have turned out otherwise, but that is a risk with all judgement and all decisions.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let me see if I have this right, from now on no matter what type of loud ripping, big bang described like an explosion etc., etc., as long as there is no immediate indication of a system failure, we can now pass it off as a "cargo shift", outstanding. 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who said that? The flight attendant hearing the explosion was not backed up by any crew member. She just said it to get press interest. Most of the flight a pilot was resting in the back and heard no explosion. She made it up. Don't you understand how people make up things to make their case? There was no explosion, she made it up. Some people do this to entertain themselves. Nobody but her heard the explosion. I wonder why?????
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What motive would a FA have to make such a post report, also seems to be a lot of speculation that the airline tried their best to sweep everything under the rug, why would that be? 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: YQL
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Dallas Morning News: {part of second FA e-mail}
It's clear that there was a loud noise. The question is how it is interpreted. The e-mail indicates that all the CC heard rumbling, then a loud noise. Apparently, according to the FA, the other CC thought it was more like an inside cargo door sound. The FA didn't think it was good or normal, and it was neither, but nor was it a danger to the aircraft. (albeit only definitively confirmed once the plane was safely in Paris) It also seems like the FA did not have the same level of experience as the other CC, so in that circumstance I would anticipate that the pilots would listen to the FA report but would also put more weight on those who had experienced similar events. They also talked to their maintenance centre in Tulsa, Oklahoma and reached a consensus decision regarding whether to continue the flight or return to DFW or an alternate.
The only thing that will remain the same from flight to flight, and crew to crew is the process.
* The CC will provide information regarding indications of a potential problem.
* The FC will review the available information with the CC to determine indications of the potential severity of the issue.
* The FC will review instruments and flight handling.
* The FC will review with their maintenance centre.
* They will decide to return, seek an alternate or continue with the flight.
Most of the time, the decision will be a good one. It will certainly be as good as the available information allows. (Perfect information will result in perfect decisions, unfortunately, in most cases, there is no such thing as perfect information, therefore, no perfect decisions either.) At a much lower frequency, the decision will not be a good one, however, that is the nature of judgement and decision making.
A lot of the flight atten dants said they had heard an inside cargo door sound before and thought it was similar. I for one have never heard that so I didn't know what to think except to me it did not sound good, nor normal. The flight was unusually hot and a little shaky from time to time.
The only thing that will remain the same from flight to flight, and crew to crew is the process.
* The CC will provide information regarding indications of a potential problem.
* The FC will review the available information with the CC to determine indications of the potential severity of the issue.
* The FC will review instruments and flight handling.
* The FC will review with their maintenance centre.
* They will decide to return, seek an alternate or continue with the flight.
Most of the time, the decision will be a good one. It will certainly be as good as the available information allows. (Perfect information will result in perfect decisions, unfortunately, in most cases, there is no such thing as perfect information, therefore, no perfect decisions either.) At a much lower frequency, the decision will not be a good one, however, that is the nature of judgement and decision making.
Last edited by FireLight; 12th May 2008 at 04:49.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all know that the flight crew did make the correct decision. It is good to see the company back them up.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is not a wholly correct attitude. The OEI 747 that continued to London and had the subsequent fuel difficulty and carried out an approach into MAN instead- the crew were NOT castigated by the airline or by the CAA. Their operation was completely correct, although criticised by the FAA and many 'commentators' here who had no idea what they were talking about.
The fact remains this AA crew did absolutely the right thing and exactly what i would have done in the same circumstances. Notwithstanding the idiots here who think it's perfectly OK to land and check it out for the sake of it, then happily continue. They have no concept of airline operations- it's easy to criticise after the event, especially when you know nothing of commercial operations but have wet dreams about aeroplanes! There are far too many of those commenting where they shouldn't!
The fact remains this AA crew did absolutely the right thing and exactly what i would have done in the same circumstances. Notwithstanding the idiots here who think it's perfectly OK to land and check it out for the sake of it, then happily continue. They have no concept of airline operations- it's easy to criticise after the event, especially when you know nothing of commercial operations but have wet dreams about aeroplanes! There are far too many of those commenting where they shouldn't!