Loud noise aboard U.S. flight investigated
Stercus Accidit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loud noise aboard U.S. flight investigated
The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating an incident onboard an American Airlines flight from Dallas to Paris, in which a Miami-based captain continued flying after crew members heard what they believed to be an explosion in the cargo hold shortly after take-off.
Unknown until the plane landed in Paris: the access panel to the air conditioner had ripped off during the flight.
If the pilots had known, ''they obviously would have returned'' to Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport,'' Jim Kaiser, American's manager of flight operations quality control and Chuck Harman, American's 757/767 fleet captain, wrote in an e-mail to American's pilots Wednesday, defending the captain's actions. ''This captain did exactly what we want our captains to do,'' they wrote.
''Even in hindsight, this flight was never in danger,'' said American spokeswoman Martha Pantín.
About 10 to 14 minutes after American flight 48 departed DFW April 20, and had climbed about 10,000 feet, ''the crew in the back of the plane felt a very strong vibration from underneath,'' and notified the cockpit, according to an e-mail from an unnamed flight attendant. About six minutes later, the flight attendants, along with the passengers, heard ''a loud explosion,'' according to the e-mail.
A crew member told the Miami-based captain, Steve Kantlehner, what they had heard and felt.
The captain called dispatch, and decided it was most likely an inside cargo door that was left open, therefore allowing bags to shift, according to the flight attendant's e-mail. The captain decided to fly the 10 hours to Paris, rather than return to Dallas-Fort Worth to check out what the noise was, the flight attendant said.
`UNUSUALLY HOT'
''The flight was unusually hot and a little shaky from time to time,'' the crew member wrote.
When the Boeing 767 landed in Paris the next morning, the crew learned that the access panel to the air conditioner had ripped off, the flight attendant said.
FAA spokesman Roland Herwig said the agency is investigating the incident. The investigation could take ''from a couple of weeks to a couple of months,'' he said.
Kantlehner declined to comment, said Karl Schricker, an Allied Pilots Association spokesman. Schricker backed the captain, disputed the flight attendants' account and said the captain said the noise did not sound like an explosion.
When the captain contacted American's personnel on the ground, he learned the plane had two fewer containers than a maximum cargo load, so the containers could shift up to 10 feet, Schricker said. The captain has 21 years of experience flying a Boeing 767, and had felt containers shift before.
''When the crew believes that luggage has shifted, there is no warning light, and no system malfunction, and you can pressurize the plane, the safest course of action is to not air-interrupt,'' Schricker said.
The air conditioner access panel has no warning light and is not a structural component of the aircraft, he said.
In fact, had the captain returned to Dallas, he would have had to dump 60,000 pounds of fuel over Texas, and make an emergency overweight landing.
`SAFEST COURSE'
''The course he took was the safest for the passengers,'' Schricker said. ``To go back to DFW would have put his crew and the passengers at more risk.''
American said it ``is investigating the incident, and until all of the facts are known, we will have no further comment.''
The flight attendant who wrote the e-mail did not respond to an e-mail, and the Association of Professional Flight Attendants could not provide information regarding the flight attendants onboard the flight.
''We can't say anything at this time because it is under investigation,'' said APFA spokeswoman Brenda McKenzie in Dallas. ``We have to wait until the investigation is over.''
Link
so the safest was to fly another 8 hrs? that comment is a bunch of nonsense.
I dare say that if you were to turnback every time that you had a similar symptom (to the pilot) then you would really have a lessening of safety.
The safety professional looks at the number of events tied to air-turn-backs and diversions against the number of events associated with thumps with no symptoms. What the cabin crew or passengers thought to themselves is of no relavance since they have no experience/training. However, there is always room for expert discussion of the procedures and training employed by any airline in general.
So is the process faulted or is this just second guessing or hindsight?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FOR MANY YEARS pilots have asked for tv cameras to provide images of exterior critical portions of the aircraft. flight controls, landing gear etc.
why not? money.
I haven't flown the 767, but another boeing. IF I had seen the image, I would return to a landing on the US side of the pond.
but the image wasn't available and I wouldn't yell at the captain too much.
I recall taking off from a major airport going to myrtle beach, as we applied thrust a huge noise...knowing that myrtle beach was a huge golfing destination, we figured some golf clubs fell out of their bag...we took off and all was well.
its a guess sometime
why not? money.
I haven't flown the 767, but another boeing. IF I had seen the image, I would return to a landing on the US side of the pond.
but the image wasn't available and I wouldn't yell at the captain too much.
I recall taking off from a major airport going to myrtle beach, as we applied thrust a huge noise...knowing that myrtle beach was a huge golfing destination, we figured some golf clubs fell out of their bag...we took off and all was well.
its a guess sometime
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cabin crew not infrequently report strange noises/events/smells/vibrations/temperatures which in the vast majority of cases come to nothing. One assumes the problem could have been crossing a wake or an air pocket. With no other confirmation of a problem, why take any action? If the captain decided it was safe to proceed having thought about the matter, who is going to crucify him here?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well here is the opinion of another 767 Captain.
Firstly I try and make it a habit not to comment on the specific actions of other crew, because I wasn't there and any number of variables can cause two different crews to approach a problem in two different ways. However speaking generally, and to some of the armchair experts who have already passed comment, I would make the following observations :
Barely a week passes without a member of the crew or a passenger through a member of the crew hearing some strange noise, or making an observation of concern to them. Don't misunderstand me, we listen to everything that is said and either make further investigations and follow up, or fit it into existing information and or experience. Two examples that spring to mind are cabin crew reporting loud whistling noises from the door area. This can often happen when there is a small leak in the door seal. Debris or detrius can sometimes get swept into the lower door area which causes an incomplete seal and results in a loud whistle as a small volume of air is sucked through a very tiny gap. As the aircraft climbs and the pressure increases the tiny leak often seals and the noise dissappears. The second is the passenger who is convinced we have just had a near miss with another aircraft that either passed 1000ft above or below us.
The cargo holds in a 767 are pressurised, and monitored for both overheat conditions and fire. An explosion in one would therefore be obvious and monitored.
The loss of an access panel is usually of no real consequence. Access panels of the sort described in this event are used as their name implies to gain access (on the ground) to the equipment located behind. The reason the panel is there is the same reason you have a fuel cap fairing on your car. It reduces surface drag by smoothing the lines of the fuselage. If it is not there, there will be a small increase in the fuel burn.
If as in this case the crew reported a noise from the cargo hold at the back of the aircraft, it would be a cause for some concern. Given no fire warning and no overheat indication and no change in the cabin pressurisation I think it is quite reasonable to discount an "explosion". In fact there are some visual checks that can be carried out in this location. The Captain was aware of a shortfall in containers that might have enabled one of the others to move. This shouldn't normally happen even without a full load of containers, but on rare occaisions it does. The captain would have been aware of the potential degree of weight and centre of gravity shift and based on that assessment didn't feel it posed a particular problem. Something that would have been a consideration. Given no flightdeck indications, controllability problems or reports of smoke / fire from the cabin it wouldn't be unreasonable to arrive at the assumption that was supposedly made.
Given that an inspection panel had detached (which obviously it shouldn't do), and there would be no way of the crew knowing this, then the decision to continue the flight was understandable and appropriate. More so when you appreciate that the flight crew did seek further information from their ground operations. Had they been able to know that this panel had detached then I suspect they would have returned to a main operating base where timely repairs would have been more managable.
That the aircraft was in any jeopardy is nonsense.
Was it safe to fly another 8 hours ? Obviously yes !
Did the flight crew ignore the information they were provided with ? No !
Did they make a reasoned assessment and decision ? Yes !
Firstly I try and make it a habit not to comment on the specific actions of other crew, because I wasn't there and any number of variables can cause two different crews to approach a problem in two different ways. However speaking generally, and to some of the armchair experts who have already passed comment, I would make the following observations :
Barely a week passes without a member of the crew or a passenger through a member of the crew hearing some strange noise, or making an observation of concern to them. Don't misunderstand me, we listen to everything that is said and either make further investigations and follow up, or fit it into existing information and or experience. Two examples that spring to mind are cabin crew reporting loud whistling noises from the door area. This can often happen when there is a small leak in the door seal. Debris or detrius can sometimes get swept into the lower door area which causes an incomplete seal and results in a loud whistle as a small volume of air is sucked through a very tiny gap. As the aircraft climbs and the pressure increases the tiny leak often seals and the noise dissappears. The second is the passenger who is convinced we have just had a near miss with another aircraft that either passed 1000ft above or below us.
The cargo holds in a 767 are pressurised, and monitored for both overheat conditions and fire. An explosion in one would therefore be obvious and monitored.
The loss of an access panel is usually of no real consequence. Access panels of the sort described in this event are used as their name implies to gain access (on the ground) to the equipment located behind. The reason the panel is there is the same reason you have a fuel cap fairing on your car. It reduces surface drag by smoothing the lines of the fuselage. If it is not there, there will be a small increase in the fuel burn.
If as in this case the crew reported a noise from the cargo hold at the back of the aircraft, it would be a cause for some concern. Given no fire warning and no overheat indication and no change in the cabin pressurisation I think it is quite reasonable to discount an "explosion". In fact there are some visual checks that can be carried out in this location. The Captain was aware of a shortfall in containers that might have enabled one of the others to move. This shouldn't normally happen even without a full load of containers, but on rare occaisions it does. The captain would have been aware of the potential degree of weight and centre of gravity shift and based on that assessment didn't feel it posed a particular problem. Something that would have been a consideration. Given no flightdeck indications, controllability problems or reports of smoke / fire from the cabin it wouldn't be unreasonable to arrive at the assumption that was supposedly made.
Given that an inspection panel had detached (which obviously it shouldn't do), and there would be no way of the crew knowing this, then the decision to continue the flight was understandable and appropriate. More so when you appreciate that the flight crew did seek further information from their ground operations. Had they been able to know that this panel had detached then I suspect they would have returned to a main operating base where timely repairs would have been more managable.
That the aircraft was in any jeopardy is nonsense.
Was it safe to fly another 8 hours ? Obviously yes !
Did the flight crew ignore the information they were provided with ? No !
Did they make a reasoned assessment and decision ? Yes !
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub for King!
It wasn't an explosion, it was reported as a 'bang'.
I've heard containers shift before and they go .....standby...are you ready for this......
'bang'.
The cabin was 'hot'. OMG! How many calls do we get about the cabin being 'hot'? The story would have the unknowing suspect there was something related to the cabin temperature and the missing panel.
And it was 'shaky' at times....
Like you'd expect a smooth flight for 10 hrs? Sorry, but almost every flight, at some point, is 'shaky'.
Interesting that the panel fell off, but how much damage was there to the a/c? Apparently zip, since it flew back with a temporary patch and tape.
Next.
It wasn't an explosion, it was reported as a 'bang'.
I've heard containers shift before and they go .....standby...are you ready for this......
'bang'.
The cabin was 'hot'. OMG! How many calls do we get about the cabin being 'hot'? The story would have the unknowing suspect there was something related to the cabin temperature and the missing panel.
And it was 'shaky' at times....
Like you'd expect a smooth flight for 10 hrs? Sorry, but almost every flight, at some point, is 'shaky'.Interesting that the panel fell off, but how much damage was there to the a/c? Apparently zip, since it flew back with a temporary patch and tape.
Next.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: canada
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Let's just chalk it up to screwdriver malfunction. Things do go bump in the night from time to time."
the ACM bay door is held closed with latches not screws.
It could've been the composite door was delaminating and enough of the composite had failed and the door departed the airplane. Or there was other damage which allowed water to get into the honeycomb material and the door failed because of water expanding when it freezes.
the ACM bay door is held closed with latches not screws.
It could've been the composite door was delaminating and enough of the composite had failed and the door departed the airplane. Or there was other damage which allowed water to get into the honeycomb material and the door failed because of water expanding when it freezes.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sonoma, CA, USA
Age: 79
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If someone in back thinks they heard/felt a bump, and there are no indications (red lights, sirens, soothing voices) telling me that something is amiss, I'll keep going, however, I'll be very tuned into any additional strange noises or vibrations or changes in one that I do notice, however slightly.
Sometimes one can feel that something is slightly off, but not off enough to abort a flight. Perhaps, and this did happen to me, it's just piece of loose insulation that's flapping against the fuselage. Fuselages are just big drums after all.
When a pilot has a lot of time in an aircraft, they are pretty much in tune.
Sometimes one can feel that something is slightly off, but not off enough to abort a flight. Perhaps, and this did happen to me, it's just piece of loose insulation that's flapping against the fuselage. Fuselages are just big drums after all.
When a pilot has a lot of time in an aircraft, they are pretty much in tune.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sonoma, CA, USA
Age: 79
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"screwdriver malfunction" was a term we used when any door/panel/whatever came loose in flight. Don't take it literally. Someone messed up. Thank God in this case, in a relatively small way...
here come the armchair experts and Monday morning quaterbacks.
The crew did what they thought was best at the time with the info they available to them. The AA Engineering people also agreed at the time.
So leave it alone.
Nobody was ever in ANY DANGER.
The crew did what they thought was best at the time with the info they available to them. The AA Engineering people also agreed at the time.
So leave it alone.
Nobody was ever in ANY DANGER.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Monday morning quarterback, receiving this information:
I would have diverted, why would one call dispatch except to notify them of your return. Glad things turned out well though. 
flight attendants, along with the passengers, heard ''a loud explosion,'' according to the e-mail
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA has already had their hearing. Congratulated the crew on the steps they took.
Dreamland - explosion? Others reported it as a 'bang'. What makes a better story, a 'bang' or an "EXPLOSION"?
ajamieson - CRM? One of the pilots said none of the F/A's mentioned any concerns to him and he sought them out. CRM has it's limits, it's not a democracy.
oldtora - they did exactly what you suggested. With nothing amiss in the cockpit, relief pilot stating nothing unusual from the cabin, they continued on their route realizing they had several divert options ahead of them (ORD, JFK, BOS, to name a few).
No additional problems were noted, seen, or heard, regardless of the 'hot' cabin (unrelated), and occasionally 'shaky' (unrelated) parts of the email, so they continued.
Dreamland - explosion? Others reported it as a 'bang'. What makes a better story, a 'bang' or an "EXPLOSION"?
ajamieson - CRM? One of the pilots said none of the F/A's mentioned any concerns to him and he sought them out. CRM has it's limits, it's not a democracy.
oldtora - they did exactly what you suggested. With nothing amiss in the cockpit, relief pilot stating nothing unusual from the cabin, they continued on their route realizing they had several divert options ahead of them (ORD, JFK, BOS, to name a few).
No additional problems were noted, seen, or heard, regardless of the 'hot' cabin (unrelated), and occasionally 'shaky' (unrelated) parts of the email, so they continued.
ZbV
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Samsonite
Age: 51
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This happened to me some 10 years ago on a 727. AC compartment door ripped off with a lound thud an associated vibration and a shake. Additionally al EPR indicatons fluctuated for a few seconds and the cabin rate indicator showed a climd for about 3 sec.
I have heard strage sounds and had some vibrations before on an aircraft including the 767 that I until recently flew as capt. All abnormalities warrant an investigation but what the actions would have been vary from case to case. If the indications for a few seconds where vibration and a bang and after that nothing with no FD indications, engine, pneumatic, trim etc etc, I would have probably elected to continue with keeping an option open to divert enroute shold any abnormalities develop.
I have heard strage sounds and had some vibrations before on an aircraft including the 767 that I until recently flew as capt. All abnormalities warrant an investigation but what the actions would have been vary from case to case. If the indications for a few seconds where vibration and a bang and after that nothing with no FD indications, engine, pneumatic, trim etc etc, I would have probably elected to continue with keeping an option open to divert enroute shold any abnormalities develop.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: cloud 9
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good decision - the Captain obviously discussed the options with his cockpit crew and the company, before making his decision to continue BUT monitor the situation carefully.
There do not seem to be any reports of smoke or fumes accompanying the 'bang' -an explosion might have produced either of those.
There do not seem to be any reports of smoke or fumes accompanying the 'bang' -an explosion might have produced either of those.