BA762 report released (cowl doors openning)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Working currently for a non british oneworld airline it is clearly defined in the SOPs who does the walkaround. It is the duty of the PM of the sector to do the exterior inspection and he signs for that in the tech log, even if it is the FO. However, it is a signature only for the exterior inspection, the captain has to sign the tech log in any case as well.
The FO is as qualified to do the walkaround as is the captain, but i guess that is mainly a training thing, some airlines chose to train their FOs, some don't.
The FO is as qualified to do the walkaround as is the captain, but i guess that is mainly a training thing, some airlines chose to train their FOs, some don't.
I don't suppose anything would have stopped the captain from saying to the FO "The aircraft is fresh out of maintenance, so be sure to get a good look at the cowl doors."
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The blasted heath
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or even...dip the tanks as the aircraft has just come out of maintenance.
I was on a BA flight not that long ago and the captain explained exactly what they were doing.
BA to my mind still has that level of communication with the pax.
I was on a BA flight not that long ago and the captain explained exactly what they were doing.
BA to my mind still has that level of communication with the pax.
ASRAAM:
I suspect that you are a First Officer?
Nowhere did I ever suggest that F/Os were not to be trusted with doing the pre-flight walkaround. If you read my original post it quite clearly states that the Company SOP stated that the Captain carried out this duty. As I said, there was many a dark and stormy night when I would cheerfully have stayed in the warmth of the cockpit.
I also suspect that you are too young to have flown with a Flight Engineer?
You express surprise that I would trust a Flight Engineer to carry out the pre flight inspection. Please understand that this very important task was always done by the Flight Engineer for that was one of the many reasons that he was there. You need to realise that the Flight Engineer sat about two feet behind the two horses arses in front and he got to the scene of the accident about 1 nanosecond after they did. Therefore, he had a great interest in protecting his own future. We trusted them to do their job and I was never ever let down.
Finally, I was quite interested in your statement that checking the bog flap would involve re-connecting the jetway. It is highly unlikely that any of us would even consider doing this but my worry is that you would consider having to re-connect a jetway a problem. Are you worried about what the management might say?
As someone who flew successfully for 50 years or so without breaking anything, do not ever let the fact that you have asked for a jetway to be re-connected affect your decision. If you consider that safety is involved, go for it every time. You would be amazed at how quickly the so-called management melts into the background when you go into print!
I suspect that you are a First Officer?
Nowhere did I ever suggest that F/Os were not to be trusted with doing the pre-flight walkaround. If you read my original post it quite clearly states that the Company SOP stated that the Captain carried out this duty. As I said, there was many a dark and stormy night when I would cheerfully have stayed in the warmth of the cockpit.
I also suspect that you are too young to have flown with a Flight Engineer?
You express surprise that I would trust a Flight Engineer to carry out the pre flight inspection. Please understand that this very important task was always done by the Flight Engineer for that was one of the many reasons that he was there. You need to realise that the Flight Engineer sat about two feet behind the two horses arses in front and he got to the scene of the accident about 1 nanosecond after they did. Therefore, he had a great interest in protecting his own future. We trusted them to do their job and I was never ever let down.
Finally, I was quite interested in your statement that checking the bog flap would involve re-connecting the jetway. It is highly unlikely that any of us would even consider doing this but my worry is that you would consider having to re-connect a jetway a problem. Are you worried about what the management might say?
As someone who flew successfully for 50 years or so without breaking anything, do not ever let the fact that you have asked for a jetway to be re-connected affect your decision. If you consider that safety is involved, go for it every time. You would be amazed at how quickly the so-called management melts into the background when you go into print!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW 411. I am a retired FE and in a former life the captain did a walk around as well. That was 3 inspections on a turnaround or preflight. On only a couple of occasions the captain discovered something I had missed. That is why we did proper inspections. Sure, I was embarrassed but we looked after each other and worked as a team. It is very easy to be distracted and miss something. They must be really talented these young fellows to be able to do it all in 25 minutes.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411
I suspect you are retired. Whatever your particular company SOP specified, nowadays, every walkround is conducted by the PF. For the captain to double-check it would be ludicrous. The bottom line is the bloke/lady missed something, as we all do. He will spend the rest of his life kicking himself for that, but he will be a better pilot for it. If you are retired you will have the satisfaction of saying, "I would never have done that," but the rest of us will think, "I could make any mistake like that tomorrow."
I suspect you are retired. Whatever your particular company SOP specified, nowadays, every walkround is conducted by the PF. For the captain to double-check it would be ludicrous. The bottom line is the bloke/lady missed something, as we all do. He will spend the rest of his life kicking himself for that, but he will be a better pilot for it. If you are retired you will have the satisfaction of saying, "I would never have done that," but the rest of us will think, "I could make any mistake like that tomorrow."
I suspect you are retired. Whatever your particular company SOP specified, nowadays, every walkround is conducted by the PF.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
framer - I believe from previous posts that b...b is with BA and has limited exposure to the airline world. I know from chats with BA guys down route that that indeed is their SOP, based on the F/O being 'P1 qualified' by BA during training.
As you say, his comment is only BA specific and there is no general airline-wide 'SOP' for the conduct of walk-rounds.
For me, I interpret 'the rules' to be that I have to be 'confident' that my F/O is capable of correctly conducting a walk-round and that is the basis on which I sign the tech log as 'fit for flight' in that respect. If I had doubts, I would do it, yes, rain or no rain.....
As you say, his comment is only BA specific and there is no general airline-wide 'SOP' for the conduct of walk-rounds.
For me, I interpret 'the rules' to be that I have to be 'confident' that my F/O is capable of correctly conducting a walk-round and that is the basis on which I sign the tech log as 'fit for flight' in that respect. If I had doubts, I would do it, yes, rain or no rain.....
Our SOPs are for the guy whose sector it is to do the walk round when two-crew and for one of the heavies to do it when there are extra bods available. This can be varied according to personal preference but most people do it this way.
Unless we’ve landed somewhere off-schedule, we always have engineering cover, so I use the walk round to concentrate on the stuff that’s most likely to cause trouble, e.g. is the gear pinned down? Tyres and brakes. Engines. Puddles of fluid underneath. Has someone made a dent/hole and not owned up to it? That kind of thing. Does it “look right” or are you getting a nagging feeling?
Most carriers run to a schedule which leaves only a certain amount of time for pre-fight preparation. You could spend a disproportionate amount of that peering into nooks and crannies and be none the wiser, then have to cut corners elsewhere. There has to be a balance. You’re not doing a D-check...
It does surprise me that there aren’t proximity sensors fitted to engine cowlings, considering the risk involved. Most of the other doors and hatches do have them but the consequences of going flying with them not quite right are often minimal.
Unless we’ve landed somewhere off-schedule, we always have engineering cover, so I use the walk round to concentrate on the stuff that’s most likely to cause trouble, e.g. is the gear pinned down? Tyres and brakes. Engines. Puddles of fluid underneath. Has someone made a dent/hole and not owned up to it? That kind of thing. Does it “look right” or are you getting a nagging feeling?
Most carriers run to a schedule which leaves only a certain amount of time for pre-fight preparation. You could spend a disproportionate amount of that peering into nooks and crannies and be none the wiser, then have to cut corners elsewhere. There has to be a balance. You’re not doing a D-check...
It does surprise me that there aren’t proximity sensors fitted to engine cowlings, considering the risk involved. Most of the other doors and hatches do have them but the consequences of going flying with them not quite right are often minimal.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA762 report released (cowl doors openning)
JW
I suspect that you are a First Officer?
No.
I am also fully aware of the role of the Flight Engineer. As you say it was his job to do the walk round. Just as it is now the job ( for the majority of airlines I suspect) for the pilots to take turns to complete the walk round.
The days of the co-pilot being told to sit there, shut up and only touch the controls if I tell you to are long gone.
The point I had been attempting to make,and which I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse about is that there are many tasks around the dispatch and minor maintenance of aircraft that we TRUST other individuals to complete.
Unfortunately, in this case the individual missed something. That is no reason to suggest First Officers should never do the walk round. You might as well say the engineers missed something, don't let them fix aircraft!
The fact is that in this event a significant number of mistakes were made by various people.
Despite the recommendation of the investigation Airbus seem likely to wriggle out of fitting any warning system that gives cockpit notification of unlatched cowl flaps.
I'm willing to bet that there will be further human failings and that it will happen again.
Finally I wonder if it was the Capt or First Officer who completed the walk round the other 36 times this problem occurred?
I suspect that you are a First Officer?
No.
I am also fully aware of the role of the Flight Engineer. As you say it was his job to do the walk round. Just as it is now the job ( for the majority of airlines I suspect) for the pilots to take turns to complete the walk round.
The days of the co-pilot being told to sit there, shut up and only touch the controls if I tell you to are long gone.
The point I had been attempting to make,and which I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse about is that there are many tasks around the dispatch and minor maintenance of aircraft that we TRUST other individuals to complete.
Unfortunately, in this case the individual missed something. That is no reason to suggest First Officers should never do the walk round. You might as well say the engineers missed something, don't let them fix aircraft!
The fact is that in this event a significant number of mistakes were made by various people.
Despite the recommendation of the investigation Airbus seem likely to wriggle out of fitting any warning system that gives cockpit notification of unlatched cowl flaps.
I'm willing to bet that there will be further human failings and that it will happen again.
Finally I wonder if it was the Capt or First Officer who completed the walk round the other 36 times this problem occurred?
Interesting to note that the cowl door hold-open device (which was engaged) failed in its stated purpose ("to make it more obvious that the fan cowl doors are unlatched").
The AAIB seem in two minds about the effectiveness of said device:
"This accident, and numerous other fan cowl door loss events on A320 family aircraft, show that the gap is not sufficiently obvious to be detected reliably. The gap is obvious when pointed out, but not so in the absence of prior knowledge."
"[The co-pilot] stated that he was unaware of the fact that there is a visible gap between the fan cowl door and the nacelle when the fan cowl doors are unlatched and held open by the hold-open device. He stated, in hindsight, that if he had known this, he would have stood quarter-on to the engine to look at the fan cowl door shut lines and it would have been obvious to him on his external walk-around that the fan cowl doors were unlatched. However, he believed that this information had never been highlighted to him previously."
The AAIB seem in two minds about the effectiveness of said device:
"This accident, and numerous other fan cowl door loss events on A320 family aircraft, show that the gap is not sufficiently obvious to be detected reliably. The gap is obvious when pointed out, but not so in the absence of prior knowledge."
"[The co-pilot] stated that he was unaware of the fact that there is a visible gap between the fan cowl door and the nacelle when the fan cowl doors are unlatched and held open by the hold-open device. He stated, in hindsight, that if he had known this, he would have stood quarter-on to the engine to look at the fan cowl door shut lines and it would have been obvious to him on his external walk-around that the fan cowl doors were unlatched. However, he believed that this information had never been highlighted to him previously."
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If, as 'Nigel' posted, there were "30+" incidents of unlocked cowlings on Airbus, it seems that BA (and a significant number of the previous operators) failed remarkably to take the necessary steps to warn their staff.
As someone else had posted, it would seem that 'first flight' walk-rounds specifically SHOULD call for a thorough check of cowlings - or did the F/O fail to do what was called for?
How many events does it take?
As someone else had posted, it would seem that 'first flight' walk-rounds specifically SHOULD call for a thorough check of cowlings - or did the F/O fail to do what was called for?
How many events does it take?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Basil and a very good idea it was. The chances of the Swiss cheese holes are considerably improved with more than one look. I have boarded aircraft in modern times where nobody did any external inspection. Reputable carriers as well. Flew in, it will fly out.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know this is an unrealistic scenario, because of the Money and Savings attitude that rules everything.
However, knowing that humans detect change and movement very well, if I was the manager of an airline I would try and make it so one person makes a brief walkaround before entering the airplane and then another more thorough walkaround when it is appropriate before starting to taxi.
In my imaginary airline there would also be a Flight Engineer, btw.
However, knowing that humans detect change and movement very well, if I was the manager of an airline I would try and make it so one person makes a brief walkaround before entering the airplane and then another more thorough walkaround when it is appropriate before starting to taxi.
In my imaginary airline there would also be a Flight Engineer, btw.
In my first airline - which operated four different types of aircraft - every time we did a new type rating; at some point during the ground-school the instructor would take us to the hangar or the ramp and deploy the flaps and open all the maintenance doors etc. and show us around the aircraft, pointing out all the parts of the aircraft we had been studying and what to look for on a walk around.
In my second airline, (which flies Airbus FBW), this was NEVER done, and continues NOT to be done, despite my pointing it out. They just rely on the written explanation in the manuals as to what to look for on a walk around. No pictures or diagrams mind you - just the written word. After this BA incident, we had a flurry of aircrew notices with - wonder of wonders - a photograph of the cowl locks !! Hallelujah !
Amazing. Have they all forgotten the Potomac river crash, where a walk around was not done because the pilots didn't want to get cold in the snow, (poor lambs) so they didn't know that their P1 probes were blocked with snow, which resulted in too little power from the engines on take-off and the subsequent horrific crash into the ice covered Potomac river?
It is a very simple matter when looking at an Airbus engine, to crouch down, put one hand on the ground to look underneath at the cowl locks. Yes, if it is raining, you will get a wet, and possibly cold hand, but is that really such a problem in the grand scheme of things?
I had to wave at and stop a Cessna 172 taxying at an airfield many years ago - it was taxying with the wing tie down weights STILL TIED TO THE WINGS AND DRAGGING ALONG THE GROUND. I kid you not.
Walk arounds are important folks. Once airborne, you can't pull into a layby and get out to sort the problem.
PS: Airbus state that PM does the walkaround.
In my second airline, (which flies Airbus FBW), this was NEVER done, and continues NOT to be done, despite my pointing it out. They just rely on the written explanation in the manuals as to what to look for on a walk around. No pictures or diagrams mind you - just the written word. After this BA incident, we had a flurry of aircrew notices with - wonder of wonders - a photograph of the cowl locks !! Hallelujah !
Amazing. Have they all forgotten the Potomac river crash, where a walk around was not done because the pilots didn't want to get cold in the snow, (poor lambs) so they didn't know that their P1 probes were blocked with snow, which resulted in too little power from the engines on take-off and the subsequent horrific crash into the ice covered Potomac river?
It is a very simple matter when looking at an Airbus engine, to crouch down, put one hand on the ground to look underneath at the cowl locks. Yes, if it is raining, you will get a wet, and possibly cold hand, but is that really such a problem in the grand scheme of things?
I had to wave at and stop a Cessna 172 taxying at an airfield many years ago - it was taxying with the wing tie down weights STILL TIED TO THE WINGS AND DRAGGING ALONG THE GROUND. I kid you not.
Walk arounds are important folks. Once airborne, you can't pull into a layby and get out to sort the problem.
PS: Airbus state that PM does the walkaround.
Last edited by Uplinker; 20th Jul 2015 at 10:58. Reason: Spelling of Hallelujah!
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: the rank
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
potomac-Air Florida
Uplinker (sorry for thread drift)
you may wish to read the NTSB report before being un necessarily disrespectful to the crew of this aircraft who paid the price for their error.
1. The aircraft was de iced
2. The aircraft had a prolonged taxi in precipitation before takeoff allowing a build up of contamination
3. The crew were well aware of the contamination hazard (they held during taxi, close behind a DC9 hoping the jet efflux would prevent further build up of contamination)
4. In all probability(according to the NTSB) the Pt2 probes were contaminated by the jet exhaust from the DC9 in front, blowing surface contaminant into the B737 nacelles.
5. The crew omitted to select the engine anti-ice to "on" after starting the engines.
6. The captain failed to reject the takeoff despite the FO's concern over the engine indications.
they made several errors mainly due to inexperience of winter ops, but the walkround was irrelevant as the contamination occurred after engine start.
you may wish to read the NTSB report before being un necessarily disrespectful to the crew of this aircraft who paid the price for their error.
1. The aircraft was de iced
2. The aircraft had a prolonged taxi in precipitation before takeoff allowing a build up of contamination
3. The crew were well aware of the contamination hazard (they held during taxi, close behind a DC9 hoping the jet efflux would prevent further build up of contamination)
4. In all probability(according to the NTSB) the Pt2 probes were contaminated by the jet exhaust from the DC9 in front, blowing surface contaminant into the B737 nacelles.
5. The crew omitted to select the engine anti-ice to "on" after starting the engines.
6. The captain failed to reject the takeoff despite the FO's concern over the engine indications.
they made several errors mainly due to inexperience of winter ops, but the walkround was irrelevant as the contamination occurred after engine start.
There have been a number of accidents where the AAIB has highlighted engineer fatigue as a contributing factor.
The AAIB report into the 2010 Olympic DHC8, which suffered engine oil loss, necessitating a shutdown and precautionary diversion (this following a maintenance input at FlyBe). The report highlighted fatigue amongst maintenance staff. One engineer had worked an average of 15.7 hrs a day over a ten day period!!
In 2011 they (the AAIB) recommended that EASA expand guidance/advisory material in EASA Part 145 regulation, “on how approved maintenance organisations should manage and monitor the risk of maintenance engineer fatigue as part of their requirement to take human performance limitations into account.”
Pretty weak & the EASA response, even weaker! The elephant in the room is that ‘effectively’ maintenance engineer’s hours are uncontrolled. The reason is cost, EASA don’t have the balls to grasp the nettle of regulating engineer duty hours/fatigue.
The AAIB report into the 2010 Olympic DHC8, which suffered engine oil loss, necessitating a shutdown and precautionary diversion (this following a maintenance input at FlyBe). The report highlighted fatigue amongst maintenance staff. One engineer had worked an average of 15.7 hrs a day over a ten day period!!
In 2011 they (the AAIB) recommended that EASA expand guidance/advisory material in EASA Part 145 regulation, “on how approved maintenance organisations should manage and monitor the risk of maintenance engineer fatigue as part of their requirement to take human performance limitations into account.”
Pretty weak & the EASA response, even weaker! The elephant in the room is that ‘effectively’ maintenance engineer’s hours are uncontrolled. The reason is cost, EASA don’t have the balls to grasp the nettle of regulating engineer duty hours/fatigue.
For what its worth my particular area of BA is taking duty hours very seriously. In fact O/T is not being worked as a result of a very careful attitude by the man in charge.
I cannot speak of other areas of BA or other airlines.
I cannot speak of other areas of BA or other airlines.