Another A32x engine cowling ?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Lanaken, Belgium
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another engine cowling
Cough:
Hopefully in time we will see a microswitch retrofitted to cowl latch and a nice ECAM 'ENG 1/2 cowl open' when the engineer helps you out...
I should like to think engine cowlings can be aerodynamically designed in such a way as not to be able to open during flight.
Moreover what is wrong with a REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT tag on the latches?
Hopefully in time we will see a microswitch retrofitted to cowl latch and a nice ECAM 'ENG 1/2 cowl open' when the engineer helps you out...
I should like to think engine cowlings can be aerodynamically designed in such a way as not to be able to open during flight.
Moreover what is wrong with a REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT tag on the latches?
Last edited by jossurf; 12th Nov 2013 at 12:25.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Right here
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The number of this type of incidents cause me to be embarrased for Maintenance staff world-wide. These cowls are opened ONLY by Maintenance staff; and it is the responsibility of an Engineer to ensure those cowls get closed & latched after said opening.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and there are 4 of them. I can understand if you forget to lock one, or miss to check one during walkaround. But to completely forget to lock any of them or to completely miss to check all of them is just another indicator for where we are heading for, if cost is our highest priority.
...and there are 4 of them. I can understand if you forget to lock one, or miss to check one during walkaround. But to completely forget to lock any of them or to completely miss to check all of them is just another indicator for where we are heading for, if cost is our highest priority.
Believe me, Maintenance folks don't deliberately fail to follow procedures, it is a repetitive mundane / easily distracted function performed thousands of times per day all over the world and the error is always classic Human Factors. There is nothing to do with cost saving. It is down to the authorities and Airbus's sadly lacking will to correct the design with any great urgency. Airbus's standard response is always "didn't follow procedures".
They are either latched or not. There is no "latched, but not latched properly" configuration.
Yes, the handles can be pressed flush without the hooks being engaged at all, but that's not the same thing.
Yes, the handles can be pressed flush without the hooks being engaged at all, but that's not the same thing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Rohr (or indeed Airbus?) release a VSB, so it was easier to determine whether the latch was insecure? Paint the latch in orange or another high contrast colour?
The latch design, mods, etc (on both CFM and IAE engines) were extensively discussed in this thread following the BA A319 cowl separation:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...-heathrow.html
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...-heathrow.html
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Eastern Anglia
Age: 75
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so it was easier to determine whether the latch was insecure? Paint the latch in orange or another high contrast colour?
Have to say it sounds to me like the latch design is the problem here, classic Human Factors issue?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: moving around
Age: 47
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
training the answer?
Maintenance companies need to do more to prevent these events. Saying that this is down to human factors is really only relevant if the company involved analyze where the break down happened and resolve the issue.
In my opinion this is down to poor maintenance standards and a failure of the organisation to prevent a well publicized and preventable event.
I would think that in the majority of similar cases the same would apply.
In my opinion this is down to poor maintenance standards and a failure of the organisation to prevent a well publicized and preventable event.
I would think that in the majority of similar cases the same would apply.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Eastern Anglia
Age: 75
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saying that this is down to human factors is really only relevant if the company involved analyze where the break down happened and resolve the issue.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the cowls lock together as a pair, it is not possible leave an odd number unlocked. I was also under the impression this was 2 cowls not 4 this time.
The 'enemy action' in this case is poor latch design.
Anyway I agree that a latch in a dirty location where you have to knee down to get to it is poor. But it is hard to design it any other way, if you want gravity to close the doors so that the latching can be done by a single person, then this is the only possible design. You may move the handles to the side of the cowling where it can easily be reached and checked and actuate the locks by bowden cable, but that would just create new failure causes. (at the moment these are KISS latches...)
I think the key here is knowledge and attention.
Whoopsie. Here we go again.
Certain historical aircraft designs have succeeded in both eliminating the risk of loose cowlings damaging control surfaces, stabilisers, and/or engine subsystems, and reducing maintenance workloads. We should learn from the lessons of the past.
A careful comparison of the foreground and background aircraft in the picture linked below perhaps illustrates my point.
http://www.trimotors.awiggins.com/im...nd707atSFO.jpg
In the automotive industry, it has long been recognised that uncommanded opening of engine cowlings can lead to an sudden and disorienting loss of visual references - often abruptly followed by uncontrolled impact with terrain.
To this end, automotive designers have created double cowling locking mechanisms, combined with sprung cowlings, such that if at least one locking mechanism is not engaged, the cowling springs open, and the absence of locking is immediately apparent, except perhaps in conditions of extremely poor visibility.
Certain historical aircraft designs have succeeded in both eliminating the risk of loose cowlings damaging control surfaces, stabilisers, and/or engine subsystems, and reducing maintenance workloads. We should learn from the lessons of the past.
A careful comparison of the foreground and background aircraft in the picture linked below perhaps illustrates my point.
http://www.trimotors.awiggins.com/im...nd707atSFO.jpg
In the automotive industry, it has long been recognised that uncommanded opening of engine cowlings can lead to an sudden and disorienting loss of visual references - often abruptly followed by uncontrolled impact with terrain.
To this end, automotive designers have created double cowling locking mechanisms, combined with sprung cowlings, such that if at least one locking mechanism is not engaged, the cowling springs open, and the absence of locking is immediately apparent, except perhaps in conditions of extremely poor visibility.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Eastern Anglia
Age: 75
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would not be difficult to arrange the latch such that it cannot be moved to the 'latched' position unless it was correctly mated with the other half.. That way even a quick glance would show the thing was not latched.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Nr Aston Down, Cotswolds
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all about the mindset of the engineer!
All of these issues would be of no consequence if the engineer closing the cowls did so correctly! The latches have not been proven to be faulty, ie. open, having been closed correctly.
Cowls should be either open on stays, or fully closed and latched!
It is madness to drop the cowls off the stays and say to yourself ill latch those later!
It requires a discipline and mindset that I'm afraid is not, nowadays, brow beaten into you during the modern abbreviated apprenticeships.
I'm not sure even Human Factors can be used as an excuse. Allowing yourself to be distracted during a critical task borders on negligence! Pilots don't go for a p on finals do they?
Cowls should be either open on stays, or fully closed and latched!
It is madness to drop the cowls off the stays and say to yourself ill latch those later!
It requires a discipline and mindset that I'm afraid is not, nowadays, brow beaten into you during the modern abbreviated apprenticeships.
I'm not sure even Human Factors can be used as an excuse. Allowing yourself to be distracted during a critical task borders on negligence! Pilots don't go for a p on finals do they?