Easyjet B737 pitch-down incident 12 January
So it fails the first flight test by more than the number of trim wheel turns allowed. Engineering then makes an adjustment in the wrong direction making the situation worse.
You can then fly around for ten days with this unknown quantity on revenue.
Dear Lord please ensure I am not a passenger on this aircraft!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Out of interest I saw 737-300 come off C check during the winter (short days) which failed the initial check. The engineers adjusted the wrong way and the first days airtest daylight was lost. As they were then unsure of the position they then rigged from scratch.
It failed again and a second adjustment was made. It failed again (just) and the second days flying was over. Passed at the 5th time of asking.
Two and a half days late off C check and the operator not happy, but the aircraft was safe.
You can then fly around for ten days with this unknown quantity on revenue.
Dear Lord please ensure I am not a passenger on this aircraft!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Out of interest I saw 737-300 come off C check during the winter (short days) which failed the initial check. The engineers adjusted the wrong way and the first days airtest daylight was lost. As they were then unsure of the position they then rigged from scratch.
It failed again and a second adjustment was made. It failed again (just) and the second days flying was over. Passed at the 5th time of asking.
Two and a half days late off C check and the operator not happy, but the aircraft was safe.
There are a number of factual inaccuracies in the AAIB Special Bulletin in the last paragraph of the Engineering Investigation section.
1. Following the flight, the commander did not verbally (or in any other way) request that this be addressed. He merely reported his observations verbally and in the flight test report to the engineering rep for engineering to decide if rectification should be made.
2. He elected not to enter it in the tech log because as it was within limits it was not a defect. This is standard procedure. He did however record it as an observation on the Flight Test Schedule.
3. There was a formal written record. The commander gave the original 28 page flight test report, which contained the shakedown manual reversion observations, to the engineering rep.
I expect these errors will be corrected in the final report.
1. Following the flight, the commander did not verbally (or in any other way) request that this be addressed. He merely reported his observations verbally and in the flight test report to the engineering rep for engineering to decide if rectification should be made.
2. He elected not to enter it in the tech log because as it was within limits it was not a defect. This is standard procedure. He did however record it as an observation on the Flight Test Schedule.
3. There was a formal written record. The commander gave the original 28 page flight test report, which contained the shakedown manual reversion observations, to the engineering rep.
I expect these errors will be corrected in the final report.
Mmmmm PPruuune!
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The commander stated that, should the aircraft pitch up or down uncontrollably during a manual reversion check, he had been trained to roll the aircraft to unload the pressure on the elevator and release the controls before reinstating the hydraulics. The commander therefore, rolled the aircraft left 91.2°
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EDI, LHR, NQY
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CaptainSandL
There are a number of factual inaccuracies in the AAIB Special Bulletin in the last paragraph of the Engineering Investigation section. I expect these errors will be corrected in the final report.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a number of factual inaccuracies in the AAIB Special Bulletin in the last paragraph of the Engineering Investigation section. I expect these errors will be corrected in the final report.
Very interesting, and a serious accusation. This is fundamental to the conclusion of the report as I read it. If you know what you claim to know, I presume you have made the AAIB aware of the error?
Very interesting, and a serious accusation. This is fundamental to the conclusion of the report as I read it. If you know what you claim to know, I presume you have made the AAIB aware of the error?
Please re-read the notes at the bottom of p1 of the Bulletin. It is a not a "Formal Report" - it is an (interim) "Bulletin". It makes no conclusions (whereas you say it does?), no analysis section, and is all subject to change.
AAIB Formal Reports go through various consulatatons prior publication, I am not sure Bulletins do in the same way? So any inaccuracies asserted by interested/affected parties can be examined and corrected if required.
NoD
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EDI, LHR, NQY
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I never said the report had made conclusions.
I do understand the purpose of the bulletin. As I read it, the account of the facts as expressed by CaptainSandL would lead to a very different conclusion IN THE REPORT from one based on the very different account that has been published so far. You describe these differences as "any inaccuracies" as if it were a matter of correcting an isolated factual error. What CaptainSandL disputes is crucial to causal chain. Would the AAIB not already have taken such different accounts into consideration at this stage? That is exactly why I asked if CaptainSandL had discussed this with the AAIB.
I do understand the purpose of the bulletin. As I read it, the account of the facts as expressed by CaptainSandL would lead to a very different conclusion IN THE REPORT from one based on the very different account that has been published so far. You describe these differences as "any inaccuracies" as if it were a matter of correcting an isolated factual error. What CaptainSandL disputes is crucial to causal chain. Would the AAIB not already have taken such different accounts into consideration at this stage? That is exactly why I asked if CaptainSandL had discussed this with the AAIB.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Left seat of a Boeing... mostly!
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could highly recommend the Empire Test Pilot's School, Boscombe Down – Civil Airworthiness Flight Test Course for any pilot or engineer involved in maintenance test flying, a truly excellent course, taught by experienced test pilot instructors from this highly respected school.
They teach the correct recovery from a nose low upset...
They teach the correct recovery from a nose low upset...
It is reported on a Yahoo Southend Airport forum that the Captain of the 'shakedown' flight passed the request for adjustment of the trim tabs to the Easyjet engineering rep at Southend and that he wrote out the request for adjustments to be made by the sub-contracted MRO. This report states that he misunderstood the sense in which the actuator rods needed adjustment and that the MRO did, in fact, carry out the work as requested unaware that the out of trim was the reverse of what they hade been told.
I cannot vouch for the veracity of this report in any way, I'm merely passing on what is being said on that website.
I cannot vouch for the veracity of this report in any way, I'm merely passing on what is being said on that website.
GiveMeABreak
No it isn't.
I have read the AAIB report thanks and it doesn't give that information. The interim report leaves very much open the possibility that the MRO made an error, whereas the contributor to the Southend forum refutes this, saying:
"....the on-site "sub-contracted" Easyjet representative raised a written "Customer Request" to the MRO, based upon the verbal handover and made the fundamental error that the required rectification was totally opposite to that reported by the crew. The MRO rectified the defect as reported."
Whether or not those are the true facts I don't know, although the writer does seem to have some knowledge of the events from the MRO's perspective, but it certainly is additional information to that contained in the interim AAIB report.
We shall see what the truth of the matter is when the final report comes out won't we?
No it isn't.
I have read the AAIB report thanks and it doesn't give that information. The interim report leaves very much open the possibility that the MRO made an error, whereas the contributor to the Southend forum refutes this, saying:
"....the on-site "sub-contracted" Easyjet representative raised a written "Customer Request" to the MRO, based upon the verbal handover and made the fundamental error that the required rectification was totally opposite to that reported by the crew. The MRO rectified the defect as reported."
Whether or not those are the true facts I don't know, although the writer does seem to have some knowledge of the events from the MRO's perspective, but it certainly is additional information to that contained in the interim AAIB report.
We shall see what the truth of the matter is when the final report comes out won't we?
Last edited by Expressflight; 6th Mar 2009 at 07:22. Reason: addition of quote to original posting
Most airtest proformas have a section for defects. Any adjustments required should have been entered there. Failing that a tech log entry should have been made and really both documents should have been used.
Nobody should be making adjustments to flying controls based on third party information.
Nobody should be making adjustments to flying controls based on third party information.
