Incident at Heathrow
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if this has been mentioned previously but would it not be possible to design a cowl door that would simply close itself under the influence of the airflow if it had been left unlatched?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Guardian are reporting the following
The leading safety adviser in global aviation has added to calls for investigation of the Airbus engine cowl latches that triggered an emergency landing at Heathrow by a British Airways plane, describing the number of incidents as "very significant".
Günther Matschnigg, the International Air Transport Association's safety chief, said it was "definitely an area we need to look into".
Last week an interim report from British investigators said that the emergency occurred after a BA maintenance team failed to ensure the cowls – the engine coverings – were properly locked. The 40kg parts were torn away from both the engines as the BA flight to Oslo took off from Heathrow on 24 May, with one causing damage to the Airbus A319 plane's wing, fuselage and landing gear, leading to one engine catching fire in the air.
The Air Accident Investigation Bureau's report pointed to the difficulty in checking whether the latches on the cowls were properly secured.
Airbus reported in July 2012 that there had been 32 incidents of cowls being lost on the A319 and similar models.
John Leahy, the chief operating officer of Airbus, said that the number of incidents was small and the company had no plans at the present time to review the engine latches. "You just have to follow appropriate maintenance. People have to be careful.
"Every two seconds a [A320 family Airbus] plane is taking off or landing."
However, asked if the numbers were statistically insignificant, Matschnigg, Iata's senior vice-president in charge of safety, said: "I would count those kinds of incidents as very significant … it is definitely an area we need to look into."
He said it was "absolutely" time for Airbus to review the latches. "When you have an incident like this it is very important that the community – the aircraft manufacturer, the engine manufacturer and the airline – look into how this happened. It might be an improvement of the latches or the procedure."
Willie Walsh, the chief executive of British Airways' parent company IAG, said he would not comment while the investigation was ongoing.
Passengers on flight BA762, who feared for their lives as the plane returned to Heathrow on one, exposed engine, are consulting a specialist aviation lawyer with a view to legal action.
The 75 passengers and crew aboard BA762 were evacuated via emergency slides on returning to Heathrow. Both the airport's runways were closed briefly, leading to BA cancelling short-haul flights for much of the day, leaving thousands stranded.
Günther Matschnigg, the International Air Transport Association's safety chief, said it was "definitely an area we need to look into".
Last week an interim report from British investigators said that the emergency occurred after a BA maintenance team failed to ensure the cowls – the engine coverings – were properly locked. The 40kg parts were torn away from both the engines as the BA flight to Oslo took off from Heathrow on 24 May, with one causing damage to the Airbus A319 plane's wing, fuselage and landing gear, leading to one engine catching fire in the air.
The Air Accident Investigation Bureau's report pointed to the difficulty in checking whether the latches on the cowls were properly secured.
Airbus reported in July 2012 that there had been 32 incidents of cowls being lost on the A319 and similar models.
John Leahy, the chief operating officer of Airbus, said that the number of incidents was small and the company had no plans at the present time to review the engine latches. "You just have to follow appropriate maintenance. People have to be careful.
"Every two seconds a [A320 family Airbus] plane is taking off or landing."
However, asked if the numbers were statistically insignificant, Matschnigg, Iata's senior vice-president in charge of safety, said: "I would count those kinds of incidents as very significant … it is definitely an area we need to look into."
He said it was "absolutely" time for Airbus to review the latches. "When you have an incident like this it is very important that the community – the aircraft manufacturer, the engine manufacturer and the airline – look into how this happened. It might be an improvement of the latches or the procedure."
Willie Walsh, the chief executive of British Airways' parent company IAG, said he would not comment while the investigation was ongoing.
Passengers on flight BA762, who feared for their lives as the plane returned to Heathrow on one, exposed engine, are consulting a specialist aviation lawyer with a view to legal action.
The 75 passengers and crew aboard BA762 were evacuated via emergency slides on returning to Heathrow. Both the airport's runways were closed briefly, leading to BA cancelling short-haul flights for much of the day, leaving thousands stranded.
Slip and turn
Well you're not. You're not a commercial pilot.
Yet you seem to post with an air of great authority even in the face of overwhelming facts or the strongly held beliefs of many of the professional pilots who post here.
Have you ever flown an A320? Have you ever been a pilot or engineer for BA?
I haven't. (Well, I got half an hour in a 320 once but that's a long story)
I'm going back to read only mode from now on.
And try and filter the facts from the BS.
Are we everyday missing defects which are mitigated or held together only by that thin but marvelous veneer of robustness and reliability in design that was honed from experience during an era when far more attention was paid to getting basic checks right?
Yet you seem to post with an air of great authority even in the face of overwhelming facts or the strongly held beliefs of many of the professional pilots who post here.
Have you ever flown an A320? Have you ever been a pilot or engineer for BA?
I haven't. (Well, I got half an hour in a 320 once but that's a long story)
I'm going back to read only mode from now on.
And try and filter the facts from the BS.
Framer states:
When our pilot makes a mistake, the Engineer needs to have the time and brain space to catch it. When our refueller makes a mistake, our Engineer and pilot need to have the time and brain space to catch it.
When our pilot makes a mistake, the Engineer needs to have the time and brain space to catch it. When our refueller makes a mistake, our Engineer and pilot need to have the time and brain space to catch it.
With random and unpredictable damage to the fuel system, hydraulic system, airframe and U/C in this instance, the outcome could have been much worse.
A critical weakness has been exposed, and the overall management of this systemic failure needs to be recognised and addressed. This is about much more than six-monthly drills in the sim.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Auckland
Age: 81
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a democracy, the people's representatives do decide, in general terms, what is acceptable, not airline pilots. They have one vote like anyone else. That is clearly demonstrated by some noise abatement procedures that may not suit pilots.
In the event an aircraft is stricken on take-off or climb-out there may be no option but to continue over dense populations. And crash onto people, as Concorde did.
In the event of a damaged aircraft from any aerodrome needing to land promptly there may be choices. That is a simple fact. To repeat myself, like it or not, the people on the ground do have an interest, and, in a general sense, a say.
Happily severely damaged aircraft don't request or demand to overfly London or other conurbations regularly. Because, I suggest, it would not be acceptable.
As far as cowls being opened and latches left unlocked are concerned, how idiot-proof must fasteners or routine procedures be?
In the event an aircraft is stricken on take-off or climb-out there may be no option but to continue over dense populations. And crash onto people, as Concorde did.
In the event of a damaged aircraft from any aerodrome needing to land promptly there may be choices. That is a simple fact. To repeat myself, like it or not, the people on the ground do have an interest, and, in a general sense, a say.
Happily severely damaged aircraft don't request or demand to overfly London or other conurbations regularly. Because, I suggest, it would not be acceptable.
As far as cowls being opened and latches left unlocked are concerned, how idiot-proof must fasteners or routine procedures be?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: miles away
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a humble PPL holder and not a professional pilot, and at the risk of having my head shot off, it is interesting to note the issues raised regarding organisational culture and how this can impact the decision making process of the pilots. There seems to be a disconnect between the fact that the buck supposedly stops with the Captain, and the operational considerations and management diktats which he/she must also balance sound decisions against.
It has been mentioned that maintenance was being completed while the aircraft was still on stand and the question also asked, well, does the pilot go back out and check that the engineers have closed the cowl doors properly? When time is of the essence? When the engineers are also professionals?
Flightglobal mentioned the following in a piece about the incident last week:
"Incidents involving the A320, notably those caused by failure to latch the doors upon closure, have plagued the type for more than two decades.
Airbus has previously noted that the A320 is particularly vulnerable because the engine pods have a ground clearance of less than 70cm (27in), and checking them during walk-round requires the observer to crouch low.
Some operators have introduced procedures requiring dual independent checks on the doors.
Airbus has been reluctant to pursue a cockpit warning system."
As an observer, it does seem that there are many links in the chain, outside the pilot's direct control, but for which he is ultimately responsible. Would this be fair to say? It would be interesting to hear from line pilots on this. Does BA, for instance, require dual independent checks on cowl doors?
While the actions of the crew have been praised widely, it would also be interesting to know their current status, i.e. active or otherwise pending investigation. I wonder will they ultimately end up carrying the can on this one, like the poor Captain of G-AWNO. I hope not.
Finally, since the aircraft is certified to fly safely on one engine in certain abnormal circumstances, under which this incident would seem to fall, then is it right to talk about the irresponsibility of flying over central London in such a condition? Unless of course it's known for sure that they shut down the wrong engine.
It has been mentioned that maintenance was being completed while the aircraft was still on stand and the question also asked, well, does the pilot go back out and check that the engineers have closed the cowl doors properly? When time is of the essence? When the engineers are also professionals?
Flightglobal mentioned the following in a piece about the incident last week:
"Incidents involving the A320, notably those caused by failure to latch the doors upon closure, have plagued the type for more than two decades.
Airbus has previously noted that the A320 is particularly vulnerable because the engine pods have a ground clearance of less than 70cm (27in), and checking them during walk-round requires the observer to crouch low.
Some operators have introduced procedures requiring dual independent checks on the doors.
Airbus has been reluctant to pursue a cockpit warning system."
As an observer, it does seem that there are many links in the chain, outside the pilot's direct control, but for which he is ultimately responsible. Would this be fair to say? It would be interesting to hear from line pilots on this. Does BA, for instance, require dual independent checks on cowl doors?
While the actions of the crew have been praised widely, it would also be interesting to know their current status, i.e. active or otherwise pending investigation. I wonder will they ultimately end up carrying the can on this one, like the poor Captain of G-AWNO. I hope not.
Finally, since the aircraft is certified to fly safely on one engine in certain abnormal circumstances, under which this incident would seem to fall, then is it right to talk about the irresponsibility of flying over central London in such a condition? Unless of course it's known for sure that they shut down the wrong engine.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a humble PPL holder
It has been mentioned that maintenance was being completed while the aircraft was still on stand
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blondie2005
At some stations engineering support is thin on the ground or non existent, the engineering staff night shift may well be at home n bad by the time you get to the aircraft. Also at some places there is no engineering support what so ever, at places like this I can't even manually check the fuel load !
I must admit that having a B1 engineering licence I am a bit more proactive than most pilots but the fact remains that the security system is blind to flight safety issues.
I must admit that having a B1 engineering licence I am a bit more proactive than most pilots but the fact remains that the security system is blind to flight safety issues.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I have no doubt that the pilot in this case did a magnificent job, given a short timeline with conflicting information to get the aircraft back to Heathrow. Nonetheless it was a complete cockup.
Passengers have no duty of care in this situation.
The duty of care rests with the professionals in the industry.
I have made cockups in my area of expertise which have cost lives and understand your angst, but you, as I, are a professional and it comes with the territory. Learn from your mistakes, admit them honestly to consumers and keep the other slack bastards in your industry honest, is the best way to go.
Passengers and consumers I would agree do not care, until there is a disaster.
As an observer, it does seem that there are many links in the chain, outside the pilot's direct control, but for which he is ultimately responsible. Would this be fair to say? It would be interesting to hear from line pilots on this. Does BA, for instance, require dual independent checks on cowl doors?
That the latches on the engine cowls have been closed is one example ( if they were still being worked on when the walk around was conducted).
That the pitot tube has been re connected after maintenance on the system is another example ( recently had a situation where it had not been done).
That the cabin pressure controller has been re connected after maintenance is another ( had that a couple of years ago).
That the center of gravity of the aircraft has been calculated correctly for departure. ( we just get a print out telling us what it is).
That the load is distributed in the correct holds in the belly of the jet as per the load calculations. ( we don't get told where it should be so can't tell if it is wrong).
That the dangerous goods we are carrying have been packed correctly and are separated when they should be separated.
That we don't have intoxicated passengers boarding the aircraft ( ground staff load them sometimes if they don't want to deal with the grumpy pax and the paperwork).
That the fuel loaded has been checked for water.
Etc etc etc
The are many things that we are technically responsible for that we have to trust other people to do.
That's just airline flying. But who is responsible for ensuring all those people are well rested and well trained and checked for competency? Take a guess......
Re the posta bout captains responsibilities which is very sensible since in todays environment the captain cannot possibly be held responsible for everything on the basis that he signed for it. How about the person who authorised him to sign in the first place. But more to the point what happens if the FO did the walk round in accordance with BA procedures and missed the latches-is that's till the captain's responsibility
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: miles away
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel, thanks for the reply. There were a few earlier posts which had referred to maintenance being performed before pushback, but I guess that is to be officially confirmed.
Framer - thanks for the details. Main question is the real risk of being scapegoated if/when something goes wrong in spite of having done the best that was humanly possible in the circumstances, and under the limitations present. Management will do their best to shrug off responsibility, even if their rules and procedures occasionally (perhaps often) do not line up with the daily operational limitations the pilots face.
Framer - thanks for the details. Main question is the real risk of being scapegoated if/when something goes wrong in spite of having done the best that was humanly possible in the circumstances, and under the limitations present. Management will do their best to shrug off responsibility, even if their rules and procedures occasionally (perhaps often) do not line up with the daily operational limitations the pilots face.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: crawley
Age: 65
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
inspections
The air crew are not employed to do duplicate inspections for maintenance staff; the engineers are required to complete the task and present the aircraft in a condition ready for flight.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I see one more post about cheese and holes I'm going to vomit. What a worn out cliche.
The flying over London argument is irrelevant in my book.
Now that's an appalling indictment of modern aviation. That's just the way it is so you just have to put up with it? If that's the way the guys at the front think these days then I grieve for the industry.
And as for "you have to trust that as professionals, they have done their job", could you please explain the pre-flight walkround check as printed in the FCOM and the crew responsibility for actioning said check? In particular, the item that the Fan Cowl Doors are closed and latched.
I agree the crew did a good job in bringing the aircraft back to LHR but rather too much of the arsonist joining the fire brigade for my liking?
The flying over London argument is irrelevant in my book.
With your logic the Captain would have to get out of the aircraft after the baggage doors were closed and the refuelling finished and do a walk around to check up on everyone just before departure on every single flight. If another department is working on the aircraft just prior to pushback the flight crew have to trust them to do their jobs to a degree. That's just modern aviation. You can't know for sure that they have " done their own diligent external check", you have to trust that as professionals, they have done their job. You're living in a fantasy land.
And as for "you have to trust that as professionals, they have done their job", could you please explain the pre-flight walkround check as printed in the FCOM and the crew responsibility for actioning said check? In particular, the item that the Fan Cowl Doors are closed and latched.
I agree the crew did a good job in bringing the aircraft back to LHR but rather too much of the arsonist joining the fire brigade for my liking?
Finally, since the aircraft is certified to fly safely on one engine in certain abnormal circumstances, under which this incident would seem to fall, then is it right to talk about the irresponsibility of flying over central London in such a condition?
Unless of course it's known for sure that they shut down the wrong engine.
Ornis:
Your argument is poorly presented, black and white, acceptable not acceptable. The fact is that it is acceptable in some circumstances.
In a democracy, the people's representatives do decide, in general terms, what is acceptable, not airline pilots. They have one vote like anyone else. That is clearly demonstrated by some noise abatement procedures that may not suit pilots.
Likewise, the crew on that damaged aircraft had to balance their immediate need for returning a distressed but STILL FLYING aircraft to the field, the public interest you mention, and the choices of airfield ... versus time and risk of no longer having a flying aircraft before touchdown ... given that at the time the extent of the damage beyond missing cowls as unknown.
To repeat myself, you don't get a vote in that situation (nor do I).
The democracy (and a few despotic sorts) have already put into place the public interest input via a whole series of qualification requirements, coded into law, operational constraints (see also speed restrictions at some altitudes) and the requirement that the pilot is required to get his crew, craft, and passengers safely to earth.
The pilot in command balances the competing intersts in a brief time, not over hours or years, and then makes a decision to get his crew, craft, and passengers back to terra firma.
That too is In The Public Interest.
In the event an aircraft is stricken on take-off or climb-out there may be no option but to continue over dense populations. And crash onto people, as Concorde did.
In the event of a damaged aircraft from any aerodrome needing to land promptly there may be choices. That is a simple fact.
To repeat myself, like it or not, the people on the ground do have an interest, and, in a general sense, a say.
Once the event hits, You Get No Vote, and I don't either. With that said, pilots of the professional sort are already attuned to the matter of populated areas as part of their professional development. They are aware of the public interest with each take off.
Happily severely damaged aircraft don't request or demand to overfly London or other conurbations regularly. Because, I suggest, it would not be acceptable.
So, in some cases it is acceptable. Your black and white framing of this matter is, to repeat myself, out of line.
(We may actually agree more than we disagree on this, and it may also be a matter of word choice which presents your argument in a poor light to me).
I have tried to edit this response to keep it civil, but if I have failed, please accept my apologies.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 5th Jun 2013 at 13:20.
Lonewolf 50, nice post.
Perhaps it is also worth mentioning that it is legal to depart from the Rules of the Air to avoid immediate danger.
Some people here don't seem to be aware of the fact that the aircraft Commander can do anything he/she deems necessary to secure the safety of the aircraft and it's occupants. He/she might have to explain his/her actions afterwards but that is another matter.
Perhaps it is also worth mentioning that it is legal to depart from the Rules of the Air to avoid immediate danger.
Some people here don't seem to be aware of the fact that the aircraft Commander can do anything he/she deems necessary to secure the safety of the aircraft and it's occupants. He/she might have to explain his/her actions afterwards but that is another matter.
Last edited by fireflybob; 5th Jun 2013 at 14:45.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happily severely damaged aircraft don't request or demand to overfly London or other conurbations regularly. Because, I suggest, it would not be acceptable
This has been explained to the n'th degree. You don't accept it? Fine.
When will it end?
We have a Tech section and I believe an ATC section why can't we take some of these what-if flight path arguments there?
That way we could devote more time to this incident's causal factors and fixing it responses while waiting for more details from the AAIB
We have a Tech section and I believe an ATC section why can't we take some of these what-if flight path arguments there?
That way we could devote more time to this incident's causal factors and fixing it responses while waiting for more details from the AAIB
Last edited by lomapaseo; 5th Jun 2013 at 16:16.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back at NH
A quick question if you don't mind.
Is there any job on the ramp that you would not check yourself?
Loading?
Deicing?
GPU panel?
I can make driving very safe tomorrow, the new speed limit is 5mph on all roads. If everyone abides by it road deaths would drop dramatically. Is it practical?
A quick question if you don't mind.
Is there any job on the ramp that you would not check yourself?
Loading?
Deicing?
GPU panel?
I can make driving very safe tomorrow, the new speed limit is 5mph on all roads. If everyone abides by it road deaths would drop dramatically. Is it practical?