Incident at Heathrow

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Originally Posted by 4468

Rather than making anonymous, judgemental pronouncements

That's hypocritical coming from you as you did the very same thing about me. What's good for the goose...

[garpal gumnut]

As a frequent flyer, as a passenger, on both Airbus and Boeing of a similar size, I am amazed by the angels on a pin discussion on this complete cockup.
It is purely through chance that this aircraft returned safely to Heathrow.
Everything from cowling Engineer checks to the walk around by the Pilot appears to be a failure of SOPs and good practice.
Even the return of the aircraft to Heathrow over large populated areas rather than to peripheral airports with low population density appears to have been unwise.
Negligence abounds in this sad and sorry tale.
Luck won out.
The only saving fact is that the aircraft survived this Fawlty Towers flight, and lessons can be learnt.
Implementation of failsafe , simple SOP's and checks seems in order, with appropriate penalties for failure to do so.

[BARKINGMAD]

WHERE ARE YOU LOOKING?

Alas once again the spotlight and the rifle sights have swung back onto the ramp, instead of being firmly aimed at the ivory towers of (mis)management!

Fascinating to see all these individuals designing or highlighting various "widgets and gizmos" to try to prevent this happening again, even though the might of Toulouse, the prime contractor, seemed unable to prevent it at the drawing board stage?

Unless we in our various roles as airframe drivers and airframe fixers exert the maximum pressure on the architects of the 25 minute turnround, the inadequate reporting times and the crazy devaluation of the engineering profession (it was one once), then the entire story will soon be re-enacted by another fleet & another company

I used to watch Captains and later found myself rushing to try to get ontime departures in order to compensate for the shortcomings of other areas of the industry which initiated the delay which we were now trying to minimize through rushing.

One day the haze cleared and I realised we were shooting ourselves in the foot by covering up the defects in other parts of the operation and leaving the beancounters and managements various with that warm wet feeling they were doing a good job. "Hey folks, look at our punctuality figures!", forgetting what sweat and tears had been shed on the line by the aircrew and engineers to achieve that result.

Now when the schedule looks like it's crumbling, through no fault of mine, I will enquire and initiate what little action I can as a mere line dog and then the "thumb-twiddling" starts and I recline the seat, close my eyes and wait for those responsible to catch up with their act.

I appreciate that they are probably having problems due to the same cost-cutting, manpower-pruning, resource-trimming exercises which got the company executives their promotion and bonuses in the first place, but the hasty action of airline "support" departments is rarely as deadly as the haste of engineers and pilots.

So once again I plead with the responsible contributors to this thread, can we please get away from the niff-naff and trivia of latch and cowling redesign, mirrors, phone cameras and overalls for pilot to lie on the apron, and concentrate our ire and our fire on where the ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY lies, including the sleeping dinosaurs in CAA/SRG and EASA?

[Yaw String]

Hear hear Barking....
We are all too often our own worst enemies....

Fudging off chocks times,whilst appearing to help,will, in the end, never heal the problem, or expose the shortcomings..
Ever tighter schedules, serviced by an ever decreasing man/womanpower can only decrease flight safety in the long run.
One thing I have learned...when the rush starts...ask for another cup of coffee, take a deep breath,and, regroup your thoughts.
A crew that has been rushed towards an ontime departure is far less likely to cope with the unexpected..IMHO..

Ladies and gentlemen...RESIST!

[Filler Dent]

Good post Barkingmad.

The cost cutting HAS affected safety and the CAA and EASA don't appear to give a damn. Proposals are under way to get rid of the engineers licence completely - can we see where that's going to end up?

The failings in this incident highlight the erosion in standards over the years.
The removal of the engineer from the PDI.
The dilution of the licensing system to suit EASA and the airlines.
BA's obsession with "A" licence working and "self-motivation" without proper supervision by a "B" licence engineer.

I stood up in the crew room and told them 10 years ago!
No one listened then........but someone got a bonus I'm sure.

[woptb]

Even the return of the aircraft to Heathrow over large populated areas rather than to peripheral airports with low population density appears to have been unwise.
Negligence abounds in this sad and sorry tale.
Luck won out.
The only saving fact is that the aircraft survived this Fawlty Towers flight, and lessons can be learnt.
Implementation of failsafe , simple SOP's and checks seems in order, with appropriate penalties for failure to do so.

Garpal,I guess you've never made an error or broken a rule ? In aviation (as opposed to less critical fields of endeavour) the outcomes can be VERY different.
Unfortunately people make errors,which can have devastating outcomes, for the same reason they forget to post a letter.

All aviation professionals do battle with their Human fallibilities eveyday,on our best days we can still screwup,add short turn rounds,bad design,fatigue,time pressure & its amazing that there aren't more problems.
Its because as professionals we work hard, train hard & realise ultimately we hold peoples lives in our hands.
The designers, operators & the regulators have a duty to ensure that they set us up to GET IT RIGHT - NOT WRONG, this is not the case.
If PAX realised the stresses & strains placed upon flight crew & ground crew they might vote with their feet. They don't realise that we can become so focussed on 'achieving' that bending/breaking the rules becomes the norm.
It would be nice if things changed across the piste,but unfortunately that takes something far more serious for things to change, people have to die, before the right questions are asked. The ripples from this event, particularly outside the aviation community, will fade quickly.

[4468]

garpal gumnut:

It is purely through chance that this aircraft returned safely to Heathrow

How astute you are. Whatever were those two lunatics in the front doing playing with all those knobs and buttons, whilst the a/c was suffering engine fire, engine failure, hydraulic failure, gear problems, etc!

Purely by chance did that superior machine manage to ignore all input by those pesky pilots and heroically deliver itself back to terra firma!

Makes one wonder why we bother having pilots at all? I'm sure a computer, or ground based pilot would have coped MUCH better! Those faultless designers, manufacturers and managers could rig something up for the travelling public, I'm sure of it!

[frequentflyer2]

In fairness to garpal gamnut, I don't think he's suggesting the pilots displayed anything other than flying skills second to none when the chips were down. He's simply pointing out had the chips descended any lower, all the expert flying in the world would not have been enough to save the aircraft, its passengers, crew and those on the ground who would have died had it plunged into even a moderately populated area following the potential "Kegworth-esque" final loss of power in the damaged engines.

[lomapaseo]

As a frequent flyer, as a passenger, on both Airbus and Boeing of a similar size, I am amazed by the angels on a pin discussion on this complete cockup.
It is purely through chance that this aircraft returned safely to Heathrow.

Everything from cowling Engineer checks to the walk around by the Pilot appears to be a failure of SOPs and good practice.
Even the return of the aircraft to Heathrow over large populated areas rather than to peripheral airports with low population density appears to have been unwise.
Negligence abounds in this sad and sorry tale.
Luck won out.

The only reason you are still alive is by chance. Everything you do in life chances an unwelcome outcome.

You really need to take your dramatization elsewhere or simply state an opinion in a poll someplace.

[NigelOnDraft]

garpal gumnut

Rather an over-dramatised post Please NB this is at least the 33rd occurrance of this. So 32 previous occasions where ground and aircrew "SOPs" have similarly failed.

So how would you prevent it happening again? Just threaten the individuals:

with appropriate penalties for failure to do so

or maybe look at the design, the management processes, the pressure ground and aircrews are under?

As a frequent flyer, as a passenger

Maybe whilst passengers are so intolerant of delays, the managment taking far more interest in why we were 3 minutes late off stand than Safety Reports we file over issues like this, we may get "commercial" and "safety" interests in a better balance

For instance, if I wanted a robust system of checking the cowls were shut prior departure, I will leave my walkround until the loading is complete, any engineering taks are complete, and it becomes a genuine "last check". If you are happy we then go 5-10 minutes late, maybe an hour if we miss a slot, please say so

[Count Niemantznarr]

Does anyone know why many BA Engineers fly as cabin crew, and how much rest do they get after a long overnight flight back to Heathrow before they commence work on the aircraft?

[Megaton]

As usual Count, you're barking up the wrong tree. In fact, that sort of insinuation should be beneath even you

[Count Niemantznarr]

How do you know whether that is relevant or not HP?

Why are Engineers flying as cabin crew?

[BARKINGMAD]

Engineers as Cabin Crew.

Why are Engineers flying as cabin crew?

Maybe M O'L is doing management consultancy work in "Watership Down" whilst Wee Willie is away sorting out the ill-fated marriage with Iberia?

Any chance WW would stand up in front of the press and explain what is going on during his watch??

Just to stress the orientation of where the fault(s) are hiding in the woodwork and urge us all to keep the 'sights elevated!!

[TomU]

What I find interesting, is that when I was working line maintenance at Gatwick in the late 1970s early 1980s, it was normal that a certifying engineer/technician (as a minimum, qualified to sign the pre-flight/departure check) would be on the headset for departure. When all the servicing vehicles were away, and all doors closed, I would do a last action walk around and panel "thump" check. Then I would be on the headset to clear the pushback and engine start. This was standard procedure.
Even on aircraft with a Flight Engineer, the the last eyeballs on the aircraft were the certifying Eng/Tech before the aircraft pushed back.
I think I am glad I do not work line maintenance in this 'advanced' day and age.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by BM

can we please get away from the niff-naff and trivia of latch and cowling redesign,

- it would be good, wouldn't it? However, you know well that the chances of achieving what you call for are close to zero - King Canute sort of stuff, really, so why not try and improve the technical/operational bits to REDUCE the numbers of incidents? How many more cowls do you wish to see come off while you 'educate' management and the regulators? You also know that there are enough pilots out there either frightened to delay a flight or seeking managerial 'glory' by being 'the most punctual', so again, dream sheet stuff. How often do the 'attached' CAA pilots fly 4 sector days with 25 min turn-rounds so they actually KNOW what they are putting their signature to?

Your dreams are long-term, and, I fear, unachievable - a tech/procedural fix is much quicker. A pilot union that recognised the problems and did something about them would be useful too.

You are, as always, quite right about how to handle the delay. The only caveat is to log times accurately - paperwork, passage through security, crew transport/access to gates, baggage loading, fuel, catering, pax, ops cock-ups etc etc - all the hundreds of 'bits' that go wrong, and make SURE you have done your best to sort things out where your remit allows.

[gazumped]

Garpal Gumnut

The whole hoo hah about flying over a populated area is just so much rubbish!! The aircraft performed an OEI approach, big friken deal! Big news item, they fly on one engine, the second engine did not fail.
When an airliner declares a PAN the captain basicly follows the safest most logical route for him, his F/O, his crew, and passengers, and lastly his aircraft. Consideration about people on the ground is way down the list, as it should be.
The area you fly over has no bearing on the decision making process with a simple OEI approach, or for that for any QRH procedure, granted these guys had a bit more of a handful, but the aircraft was not in jeopardy, so it is a non issue.
The crew did a good job of getting it back safely, just as a vast majority of well qualified crew would have done, ie they did their job, nothing more and nothing less. They did what they were paid to do.
In the final wash up there may some egg to wear on face about the walk around, people make mistakes.
Enough about flying over populated areas. I have done a couple of OEI approaches in anger and I can very honestly say I did not give a single seconds thought about people on the ground, my brain space was fully occupied with the job in hand. You see if the captain is very very selfish about these situations and concentrates on saving his own ass, you will generally find most of the passengers follow closely behind, and everyone on the ground have no idea about what is happening, much like you Garpal!

[BARKINGMAD]

DREAMS.

BOAC, you are right that my dreams are maybe too ambitious, but it seems to me to be an ideal opportunity to expose the structural failings in our industry and use this horrible incident/ accident as a stick with which to beat the perpetrators, wake up the public and the "regulators" and try to get a fundamental shift in the attitude and practices of those responsible?

If it's not engine cowlings next week, month or year, it will be something else traceable to the modern practices which will cause another disaster. Fine by all means address THIS failure with a metal-bending and cutting fix, but the fundamental rot goes deeper and wider.

Keep reading the CHIRPs as they arrive and then marvel it's taken this long to happen?

[woptb]

Barking,totally agree.
We are short-termist,airlines have become too fixated on the 'prize' ie money. Whilst the fan cowls beiing unlocked is 'partly' a design issue that must be addressed, it was not the only cause.The end result is a symptom of the wider issues affecting us.

If we don't address the causes,we'll have similar failures,until redundancy by design & the proffessionalism of maintainers & operators, is finally overcome & we have fatalities.

[RTM Boy]

The mindset of so many on here baffles me.

Gazumped, are you being serious, or just being controversial for the sake of it? What you are basically saying is that people on the ground are irrelevant and the captain is always right. Well, he should be. Just as he or the first officer should have spotted the unlatched catches. It's up to the aircrew where they come back to - but if the mayday had occured earlier in the flight, would they have come back to LHR???

As for people making mistakes, that you dismiss as egg-on-face, given the damage to the starboard engine and airframe it was a miracle they made it back to LHR at all. If the fuel line to the port engine had been severed also, where would they have landed? Victoria Station? The Natural History Museum? Kew Gardens? The Great West Road?

I genuinely think there is a real lack of appreciation by very many of the political and practical consequences of a plane on approach to LHR crashing on a populated area. The ramifications was extend far beyond the loss of the crew, PAX and anyone on the ground. It was sheer luck this did not happen last week.

If this risk is not factored into airline safety thinking it will be only a matter of time before it does happen and then forget a third runway - forget LHR altogether - and the consequences will spread far and wide to all other airports and airlines. The attitudes portrayed by some on here do not bode well for reducing the risks to the whole airline industry.