Incident at Heathrow
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
latching good
Some time in the fifties car makers discovered that if the bonnet opens while you are mobile bad things can happen.
They decided to have two latches one holds the bonnet closed good and proper the other just holds it more or less down but stops it coming any further up. It also allows it to project a bit so you notice the upsticking and vibrate a bit so you wonder what the noise is
They did this because they knew every so ofter one latch just isn't enough
Maybe there is a mesage, one latch holds the cover downish the other holds it nice and snug. You could even put a little contact to say first latch only engaged gov do something
When a problem has happened several times on similar types we ought to do something
They decided to have two latches one holds the bonnet closed good and proper the other just holds it more or less down but stops it coming any further up. It also allows it to project a bit so you notice the upsticking and vibrate a bit so you wonder what the noise is
They did this because they knew every so ofter one latch just isn't enough
Maybe there is a mesage, one latch holds the cover downish the other holds it nice and snug. You could even put a little contact to say first latch only engaged gov do something
When a problem has happened several times on similar types we ought to do something
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Malton, North Yorkshire
Age: 71
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latches unlatched but stowed - no indications!?
I am not an airline pilot or ground crew member, but am an aerospace engineer of some 35 years standing, having worked on mainly military stuff.
Forgive me if someone else has previously raised this point, but I think not. It seems to me that, having read all the preceding posts and watched intently the video
( - particularly at 8.45mins in!) there may be a 'bum trick' been missed by other posters concerning the cowl latching on the V2500.
If this video illustrates the current latching system, and I'll be the first to admit that it's now some 3 years old, so may not, it appears nevertheless that each cowl latch may be able to be pushed home/flush WITHOUT THE HOOK OF THE LATCH ENGAGED on its corresponding pin/toggle and the LATCH HELD FLUSH by it's trigger/button! The cowls seem to fall closed or near to closed in this situation.
I cannot therefore see any way in which, given this scenario, :-
A) the latches could be easily observed to be unlatched, on a walk-round or by ground crew observation or the like
B) any painting of the latches in fluorescent colours or likewise would aid the identification of an unlatched latch
C) the cowls could be easily seen to be gaping/unlatched with the aircraft at rest.
Having looked at the latch design (from H******l, I assume) it seems not beyond the wit of man to engineer a latch that CANNOT be closed unless it is fully hooked onto its mating pin/toggle, such that unlatched latches would definitely hang down from the nacelle. Paint 'em fluorescent then, if you like, and they would almost definitely be noticed!
Forgive me if someone else has previously raised this point, but I think not. It seems to me that, having read all the preceding posts and watched intently the video
If this video illustrates the current latching system, and I'll be the first to admit that it's now some 3 years old, so may not, it appears nevertheless that each cowl latch may be able to be pushed home/flush WITHOUT THE HOOK OF THE LATCH ENGAGED on its corresponding pin/toggle and the LATCH HELD FLUSH by it's trigger/button! The cowls seem to fall closed or near to closed in this situation.
I cannot therefore see any way in which, given this scenario, :-
A) the latches could be easily observed to be unlatched, on a walk-round or by ground crew observation or the like
B) any painting of the latches in fluorescent colours or likewise would aid the identification of an unlatched latch
C) the cowls could be easily seen to be gaping/unlatched with the aircraft at rest.
Having looked at the latch design (from H******l, I assume) it seems not beyond the wit of man to engineer a latch that CANNOT be closed unless it is fully hooked onto its mating pin/toggle, such that unlatched latches would definitely hang down from the nacelle. Paint 'em fluorescent then, if you like, and they would almost definitely be noticed!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was pleased to note in the tech log on the A319 I flew today.
...after overnight maintenance. " engine cowls closed and checked" and then another entry, "double independent inspection of engine cowls"
This is also true of oil filler caps after replenishment and has been for a long time at Ezy. (well at my base anyway)
...after overnight maintenance. " engine cowls closed and checked" and then another entry, "double independent inspection of engine cowls"
This is also true of oil filler caps after replenishment and has been for a long time at Ezy. (well at my base anyway)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stockholm Sweden
Age: 74
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They do, say 3 sectors per day, and 1 "daily service"
On most engines, there is an access panel for the IDG oil check, but not on the V2500. I wonder if a modification to fit an IDG service panel would be justifyed because it might stop the next cowl loss?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two interesting regulatory issues arising from this incident:
1. AAIB/FAA etc. recommendations versus ADs. This seems to be an instance where, in retrospect, one would wish that an AD had been issued following previous similar incidents. One wonders why this didn't happen, given that a double cowl separation could easily arise from a single maintenance/inspection SNAFU and could fatally compromise twin-engine redundancy.
2. What actions operators should take in the time lag between the AAIB starting its investigation and publication of its report. To give one example (which sadly involved friends of mine): in July 2009 a four year old girl fell through the railings at the top of the integral airstairs of a RYR 737-800 at STN. There was an AAIB investigation leading to a report which was published just over a year later in August 2010. This time lag was unfortunately too great to prevent a recurrence of exactly the same incident to another little girl at Girona in June 2010.
There is anecdotal evidence on this board of operators taking immediate action to tighten their procedures - and their engine cowls. And there is a wide spectrum between incidents which require a whole fleet to be grounded immediately (e.g. 787 batteries) and stuff which can be kicked into next year. But the two Ryanair incidents show that operators can't be relied upon to get things right prior to the regulator's report and recommendation - so perhaps more is required from the regulators in the interim?
(Finally - please don't jump on the fact that I've mentioned two RYR incidents. I'm sure there are similar 'regulatory lag' examples out there involving other operators.)
1. AAIB/FAA etc. recommendations versus ADs. This seems to be an instance where, in retrospect, one would wish that an AD had been issued following previous similar incidents. One wonders why this didn't happen, given that a double cowl separation could easily arise from a single maintenance/inspection SNAFU and could fatally compromise twin-engine redundancy.
2. What actions operators should take in the time lag between the AAIB starting its investigation and publication of its report. To give one example (which sadly involved friends of mine): in July 2009 a four year old girl fell through the railings at the top of the integral airstairs of a RYR 737-800 at STN. There was an AAIB investigation leading to a report which was published just over a year later in August 2010. This time lag was unfortunately too great to prevent a recurrence of exactly the same incident to another little girl at Girona in June 2010.
There is anecdotal evidence on this board of operators taking immediate action to tighten their procedures - and their engine cowls. And there is a wide spectrum between incidents which require a whole fleet to be grounded immediately (e.g. 787 batteries) and stuff which can be kicked into next year. But the two Ryanair incidents show that operators can't be relied upon to get things right prior to the regulator's report and recommendation - so perhaps more is required from the regulators in the interim?
(Finally - please don't jump on the fact that I've mentioned two RYR incidents. I'm sure there are similar 'regulatory lag' examples out there involving other operators.)
Last edited by J-Class; 28th May 2013 at 18:21.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Age: 54
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote
aveReidUK]
I'm [sure] there are similar 'regulatory lag' examples out there involving other operators.
[/quote]
You mean like a voluntary recall due to pitot tube icing.
aveReidUK] I'm [sure] there are similar 'regulatory lag' examples out there involving other operators.
[/quote]
You mean like a voluntary recall due to pitot tube icing.
Thankfully BA have announced they are not going to dish out sack loads of compo to SLF delayed by this incident.
Bad s***t happens folks so get over it!
Bad s***t happens folks so get over it!
Last edited by vctenderness; 28th May 2013 at 18:38.
[quote DaveReidUK]I'm [sure] there are similar 'regulatory lag' examples out there involving other operators.
Your quote comes from the post immediately preceding yours, from J-Class, who I'm sure will be happy to address whatever point you were trying to make.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durham
Age: 62
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I cannot understand is the posts about unlatched cowlings, but both engines on the BA aircraft showed problems. I can believe that one cowling was undone and blew off, but two? I'd appreciate an explanation, theory, conjecture or even gossip.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The theory/conjecture is easy enough - presumably both engines were serviced prior to the flight, cowls on both not properly secured, the fact they were both open not noticed / not obvious to crew.
Last edited by J-Class; 28th May 2013 at 21:43.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to the manufacturer making a mod or having it imposed on them this industry surely does not have a glorious history of doing this, indeed it has in the past given us reason to believe it does all it can to avoid such a solution.
Just look how long it took the well documented and repeatedly reported pitot head problems. It required a three figure body count to prompt action on that one, it's an aspect of our manufacturers and regulators that gives us nothing to be proud of.
Just look how long it took the well documented and repeatedly reported pitot head problems. It required a three figure body count to prompt action on that one, it's an aspect of our manufacturers and regulators that gives us nothing to be proud of.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Banbury
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinribs
"Some time in the fifties car makers discovered that if the bonnet opens while you are mobile bad things can happen.
They decided to have two latches one holds the bonnet closed good and proper the other just holds it more or less down but stops it coming any further up. It also allows it to project a bit so you notice the upsticking and vibrate a bit so you wonder what the noise is
They did this because they knew every so ofter one latch just isn't enough"
We call this method of working a FAIL SAFE do we not?
They decided to have two latches one holds the bonnet closed good and proper the other just holds it more or less down but stops it coming any further up. It also allows it to project a bit so you notice the upsticking and vibrate a bit so you wonder what the noise is
They did this because they knew every so ofter one latch just isn't enough"
We call this method of working a FAIL SAFE do we not?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South East
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, if as on first hand, it is confirmed that the cowls were not latched and secured correctly, this is a classic Human Factors incident.
A very poor design by Airbus which has been notified to them on numerous occasions since entry into service of the V2500.
A modification to keep the cowls 'unfaired' until mechanically closed is also of poor design.
Even with safeguards like duplicate inspections to ensure correct latching, depending on time of day/weather conditions this could still be missed in the current era of limited engineering resources to carry out maintenance at most airlines, exasperated by the poor design.
All this could be remedied by either a better mechanical indication system or modification to latches of a similar design to other types such as on the RB211-535/524. Whether it's Airbus's or the Airlines reluctance to this due to costs is up for debate.
A very poor design by Airbus which has been notified to them on numerous occasions since entry into service of the V2500.
A modification to keep the cowls 'unfaired' until mechanically closed is also of poor design.
Even with safeguards like duplicate inspections to ensure correct latching, depending on time of day/weather conditions this could still be missed in the current era of limited engineering resources to carry out maintenance at most airlines, exasperated by the poor design.
All this could be remedied by either a better mechanical indication system or modification to latches of a similar design to other types such as on the RB211-535/524. Whether it's Airbus's or the Airlines reluctance to this due to costs is up for debate.
As already stated, BA have announced that they will pay no compensation to those affected by the 190 flights cancelled because of this incident.
I am mildly surprised at this decision for I would have thought that a smart lawyer would have little difficulty in proving that BA probably caused the chaos in the first place.
I am mildly surprised at this decision for I would have thought that a smart lawyer would have little difficulty in proving that BA probably caused the chaos in the first place.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Lancs, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proximity Switches
Flaphoot
I am not splitting hairs, but the 'quick fix' of fitting proximity switches are of little use - they will only tell you once the cowl had been blown open. At rest with the cowl latches unlocked, they would still appear to being 'locked' as gravity forces them together. Another type of switch mechanism to register the positive latch engagement would be required. 
surely in this day and age of technology there should be proximity switches on the cowl doors ? All other doors whether they be passenger, service, type 3, freight or avionics bay doors have proximity switches.
..... and that delay arises from causes within the carrier's control ....
Maybe not as many journalists go through our Site as we sometimes think ......
Last edited by WHBM; 29th May 2013 at 11:15.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The blasted heath
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@555
Yes they put devices on cars to prevent bonnets opening in motion but this did not prevent it happening to Renault Clio cars, and not rarely either. I witnessed this on a busy road and it was an extremely dodgy moment as the driver would have had no view forward.
At no time were these vehicles recalled to fix this potentially dangerous fault (In fact I do not believe a car has ever been recalled by the UK authorities for any reason, and I can only speak in this for the UK) and the matter was passed off as a maintenance problem or lack of maintenance/user problem.
A new more robust latch was fitted through the good will of dealers and on request; hushed up if you will.
In short the regulatory authorities were slow to act and their response was about as good as a chocolate tea pot.
Perhaps we are in a similar position here and in an industry which has a history of disasters caused by bits falling off despite some of them being deemed 'fail safe' a term which should be an oxymoron.
Was it not widely mooted that the Aer Lingus Viscount that crashed back in the 60s in the Irish Channel could have been a victim of a catering door or hatch coming loose and destroying part of the empanage?
I believe the HS748 had similar problems and we are all aware of the DC10 debacle.
Somewhere I have photo of a BCAL 707 on which a nose wheel door detached. The door hit the leading edge of the wing then made a deep crease upwards and along the main body, then on up the fin (due to one of the tyres having been inflated with air and being damaged on the take off run, so perhaps and exception but one that could have been avoided).
Bits falling off aircraft that could/should have been properly secured and by the present stage of aviation (Murphy factor excluded) should pretty much have been eliminated.
Perhaps we should be thankful that due to the diligence of those involved these things happen as seldom as they do.
My thoughts for what they are worth and Murphy never seems to go away and rest in peace.
Yes they put devices on cars to prevent bonnets opening in motion but this did not prevent it happening to Renault Clio cars, and not rarely either. I witnessed this on a busy road and it was an extremely dodgy moment as the driver would have had no view forward.
At no time were these vehicles recalled to fix this potentially dangerous fault (In fact I do not believe a car has ever been recalled by the UK authorities for any reason, and I can only speak in this for the UK) and the matter was passed off as a maintenance problem or lack of maintenance/user problem.
A new more robust latch was fitted through the good will of dealers and on request; hushed up if you will.
In short the regulatory authorities were slow to act and their response was about as good as a chocolate tea pot.
Perhaps we are in a similar position here and in an industry which has a history of disasters caused by bits falling off despite some of them being deemed 'fail safe' a term which should be an oxymoron.
Was it not widely mooted that the Aer Lingus Viscount that crashed back in the 60s in the Irish Channel could have been a victim of a catering door or hatch coming loose and destroying part of the empanage?
I believe the HS748 had similar problems and we are all aware of the DC10 debacle.
Somewhere I have photo of a BCAL 707 on which a nose wheel door detached. The door hit the leading edge of the wing then made a deep crease upwards and along the main body, then on up the fin (due to one of the tyres having been inflated with air and being damaged on the take off run, so perhaps and exception but one that could have been avoided).
Bits falling off aircraft that could/should have been properly secured and by the present stage of aviation (Murphy factor excluded) should pretty much have been eliminated.
Perhaps we should be thankful that due to the diligence of those involved these things happen as seldom as they do.
My thoughts for what they are worth and Murphy never seems to go away and rest in peace.