Preliminary Report of Boeing 747-400F Fatal Accident, Dubai -3Sep10
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Florida, USA
Age: 77
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Preliminary Report of Boeing 747-400F Fatal Accident, Dubai -3Sep10
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A short interval after the AP was disengaged, the CAPT informed the F/O that there was limited pitch control of the aircraft in the manual flying mode, the CAPT then requested the F/O to determine the cause of the pitch control anomaly.
Did I read that correctly, that a push to talk is used to communicate between the capt and f/o?
Last edited by innuendo; 4th Apr 2011 at 03:06.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not go to DOH?
As a lowly CFI, I wonder why the crew elected to go to DXB (150nm away) instead of DOH (100nm away)? Do you more experienced folks have any idea why they would have gone to a more distant airport? Had you been in their shoes, what factors would you consider before selecting an airport in this situation?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should be able to latch the mic on the control column for a hot mic.
But breathing in the oxy mask causes a lot of noise with a hot mic so invariably it's unlatched to keep the noise down and just used when req.
But breathing in the oxy mask causes a lot of noise with a hot mic so invariably it's unlatched to keep the noise down and just used when req.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: any town as retired.
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DXB was a known airport to the crew
Having just departed from there, they would possibly, have nav aids set up..(possibly)..for an immediate return...(some company procedures are like this).....so having landed at DXB, perhaps several times, they would be happier to go back there than to DOH, which they might never have visited, or even heard of.
The lack of pitch control, could be due to the fire damaging the cable runs, that if you look at the report were routed above the fire area.
A full emergency check list procedure, might also take that time / distance, plus the time for descent is relevent.
I am not second guessing here, just expressing my thoughts.
What is interesting is to consider that if, they have not quite made the runway at DXB, the area that they would have landed in is highly populated, with residents and industry.
I hope that DXB APT is considering that aspect of the accident also.
The lack of pitch control, could be due to the fire damaging the cable runs, that if you look at the report were routed above the fire area.
A full emergency check list procedure, might also take that time / distance, plus the time for descent is relevent.
I am not second guessing here, just expressing my thoughts.
What is interesting is to consider that if, they have not quite made the runway at DXB, the area that they would have landed in is highly populated, with residents and industry.
I hope that DXB APT is considering that aspect of the accident also.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A tropical island.
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just departed from there, they would possibly, have nav aids set up..(possibly)..for an immediate return...(some company procedures are like this).....so having landed at DXB, perhaps several times, they would be happier to go back there than to DOH, which they might never have visited, or even heard of.
To the original person asking:
We'll probably never know what went on in the decision making process to say with any great certainty how the CA arrived at the decision to go to DXB, I wasn't there and I won't comment on it, other than to say he did what he considered was best.
Personally, for anything other than a fire or structural problem I would have gone to DXB, even for an engine failure. The moment you fire and structural integrity are involved I find the nearest available airport I feel I can land the airplane on, end of story, I don't give consideration to mx facilities, ground facilities/equipment etc. etc. when I'm staring death in the face, I get my butt back on the ground and worry about that stuff later. Engine failures, systems problems etc. etc. that warrant a return I will always go to a company mx base where possible, or wherever I just came from.
What is interesting is to consider that if, they have not quite made the runway at DXB, the area that they would have landed in is highly populated, with residents and industry.
I hope that DXB APT is considering that aspect of the accident also.
I hope that DXB APT is considering that aspect of the accident also.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you more experienced folks have any idea why they would have gone to a more distant airport? Had you been in their shoes, what factors would you consider before selecting an airport in this situation?
- Proximity
- Runway length
- Weather
- Firefighting capability
- Company presence
- Maintenance support
But it's pretty much drilled into you from your first day of 121 training, nearest suitable is nearest suitable. You cannot bypass the closest suitable airport without a really good reason - a safety-related reason.
But Doha was another country, they've never been there before, and their charts may not have contained Doha. So you're looking at getting vectors and all pertinent approach info on guard freq from a strange country's controllers. I can see how Dubai would be a very attractive alternative.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by Mark in CA; 4th Apr 2011 at 05:50.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting read, and got me thinking about the Class E cargo compartment. Except from closing the door, what means are there to exclude smoke from the flight deck? In this particular incident it seems the smoke brought the aircraft down, made the crew unable to operate the aircraft to landing.
Class E Cargo Compartment: A Class E cargo compartment is one on airplanes used only for the carriage of cargo and in which:
i. There is a separate approved smoke or fire detector system to give warning at the pilot or flight engineer station;
ii. There are means to shut off the ventilating airflow to, or within, the compartment, and the controls for these means are accessible to the flight crew in the crew compartment;
iii. There are means to exclude hazardous quantities of smoke, flames, or noxious gases, from the flight crew compartment
iv. The required crew emergency exits are accessible under any cargo loading condition.
I am also thinking of this NPA (http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/...%202008-10.pdf) concerning the safety off Class B compartments, similar to Class E doesn't require fire suppression system and too big for efficient use of hand held extinguishers.
Class E Cargo Compartment: A Class E cargo compartment is one on airplanes used only for the carriage of cargo and in which:
i. There is a separate approved smoke or fire detector system to give warning at the pilot or flight engineer station;
ii. There are means to shut off the ventilating airflow to, or within, the compartment, and the controls for these means are accessible to the flight crew in the crew compartment;
iii. There are means to exclude hazardous quantities of smoke, flames, or noxious gases, from the flight crew compartment
iv. The required crew emergency exits are accessible under any cargo loading condition.
I am also thinking of this NPA (http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/...%202008-10.pdf) concerning the safety off Class B compartments, similar to Class E doesn't require fire suppression system and too big for efficient use of hand held extinguishers.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Swissair reminded us of what our priorities need to be if we're on fire. Get on the ground without delay, you may only have a few minutes to do so. Split cockpit, one does the flying and talking to ATC, one does as much of the checks as time allows. You will have @ 15mins max possably significantly less. If you think you need to allow time to complete the checklist, company procedures etc think again.
No ejection seats in commercial aircraft.
No ejection seats in commercial aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The frequent Pack 1 issue might be significant:
given
Appreciate there might not be a simple answer, but does this sort of fault:
indicate the Pack shutting itself down? Or just a more minor fault, but it continues to operate?
In short, seems Packs 2 & 3 were manually (and automatically as per Note 8?) deselected, but it was important, for Smoke clearance, that Pack 1 operated. Given Pack 1's misbehaviour on previous leg, and on this leg prior the fire, maybe it recurred? One of those unfortunate "holes in the cheese lining up"? Maybe the "Fire Checklist" needs a line added "ensure Pack 1 or 3 operating..." to cover this unfortunate co-incidence?
Add: never flown a 744, not Boeing for some years, so thoughts appreciated from those who have. And maybe 744F specifically?
Based on the DFDR data, at 15:15 UTC, PACK 1 shut down, with no corresponding discussion recorded on the CVR.
Note7 : This check list was revised through a Boeing MOM in December 2010 advising operators that either air conditioning pack one or pack three must be operating to prevent excessive flight deck smoke accumulation during a main deck fire
Note8 : When the Main Deck Cargo Fire Arm switch is depressed, PACK 2 and 3 shut down while PACK 1 continues to supply conditioned air to the upper deck. This provides a positive pressure differential between the upper deck and the rest of the airplane preventing smoke or fumes entering occupied areas.
The take off and climb out from DXB was uneventful with the exception of a PACK 1 fault which was reset by the PNF at 14:55 UTC at 13,000 ft enroute to the BALUS waypoint.
In short, seems Packs 2 & 3 were manually (and automatically as per Note 8?) deselected, but it was important, for Smoke clearance, that Pack 1 operated. Given Pack 1's misbehaviour on previous leg, and on this leg prior the fire, maybe it recurred? One of those unfortunate "holes in the cheese lining up"? Maybe the "Fire Checklist" needs a line added "ensure Pack 1 or 3 operating..." to cover this unfortunate co-incidence?
Add: never flown a 744, not Boeing for some years, so thoughts appreciated from those who have. And maybe 744F specifically?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting - does the Dec 2010 QRH change restrict or caution against onward ops with Pack 1 u/s? Any 747 drivers to comment on the MEL for Pack1?
I cannot see anything in the pre-Dec QRH that places any distinction between PACKS 1/2/3 failure
I cannot see anything in the pre-Dec QRH that places any distinction between PACKS 1/2/3 failure
GCAA website off the air
The links don't work for me. Looks like the GCAA website is u/s. Cannot imagine the whole world is trying to download the report.
Anyone with another option?
Anyone with another option?