Tiger A320 - another "lost" cowling?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some A320's I work do not have the small panel to quick view the IDG oil level and opening the fan cowls is the only way. That in itself creates amongst some the hesitation in opening the cowlings to see the sight glass . . .
For heaven's sake, just check thoroughly that the aircraft is fit to fly before flying it. (I am not specifically commenting on this particular incident, but on the general issue about checking engine cowl latches).
If turnarounds or maintenance procedures mean that cowls need to be opened AFTER the walkaround has been completed, then write ASRs and get the procedures changed.
The walkaround is the final check that the aircraft is secure, safe and ready for flight. Engineers should not open a cowl after the walkaround has been completed and the tech log has been signed. If they do, they should inform the flight deck, write the reason in the tech log and sign it again, and it should be confirmed without doubt that the cowl has been relatched and checked.
We are in the business of being SAFE. No amount of commercial pressure or short cuts should be allowed or tolerated if they impinge on safety.
@Calvin Hops, It was hopefully clear from my post that I was making a general point about checking cowlings, since I made no reference to the incident referred to on this thread, or any others.
If turnarounds or maintenance procedures mean that cowls need to be opened AFTER the walkaround has been completed, then write ASRs and get the procedures changed.
The walkaround is the final check that the aircraft is secure, safe and ready for flight. Engineers should not open a cowl after the walkaround has been completed and the tech log has been signed. If they do, they should inform the flight deck, write the reason in the tech log and sign it again, and it should be confirmed without doubt that the cowl has been relatched and checked.
We are in the business of being SAFE. No amount of commercial pressure or short cuts should be allowed or tolerated if they impinge on safety.
@Calvin Hops, It was hopefully clear from my post that I was making a general point about checking cowlings, since I made no reference to the incident referred to on this thread, or any others.
Last edited by Uplinker; 3rd Dec 2015 at 10:28.
Only half a speed-brake
Question for the engineers?
On a routine maintenance schedule, what are the reasons to open the cowling and the frequency of doing so? Also, is it any different between CFM and IAE, some posters above seem to indicate it is the case.
regards, FD.
regards, FD.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 3rd Dec 2015 at 11:02.
The last couple of years, there has been increased awareness of this issue, as the regulator leant on airlines to re-educate pilots and engineers.
And has that effort has made any difference at all?
And has that effort has made any difference at all?
If turnarounds or maintenance procedures mean that cowls need to be opened AFTER the walkaround has been completed, then write ASRs and get the procedures changed.
The walkaround is the final check that the aircraft is secure, safe and ready for flight. Engineers should not open a cowl after the walkaround has been completed and the tech log has been signed. If they do, they should inform the flight deck, write the reason in the tech log and sign it again, and it should be confirmed without doubt that the cowl has been relatched and checked.
The walkaround is the final check that the aircraft is secure, safe and ready for flight. Engineers should not open a cowl after the walkaround has been completed and the tech log has been signed. If they do, they should inform the flight deck, write the reason in the tech log and sign it again, and it should be confirmed without doubt that the cowl has been relatched and checked.
But worth bearing in mind that the above circumstances (opening the cowls after the walkaround) aren't what happened in, for example, the BA incident. Nor was that a simple case of engineers "forgetting" that they had not latched the cowls.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For heaven's sake, just check thoroughly that the aircraft is fit to fly before flying it.
The for heavens sake method should also be applied throughtout aviation, but for some odd reason it doesn't work all the time. Even if it is in the OM-A.
That's why we have (E)GPWS, TCAS, stall warnings, overspeed warnings, and a number of other defensive measures installed.
We are just not perfect enough.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brighton
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you open the cowls, you put an entry in the Tech log.
"ENG #1 cowls opened for .........whatever"
When you shut them you close the entry.
"ENG #1 cowls closed, secured and latched satisfactory"
Simple.
It gives visibility and responsibility to all concerned.
It's in the AMM, company procedures - no excuse.
"ENG #1 cowls opened for .........whatever"
When you shut them you close the entry.
"ENG #1 cowls closed, secured and latched satisfactory"
Simple.
It gives visibility and responsibility to all concerned.
It's in the AMM, company procedures - no excuse.
Simple.
It gives visibility and responsibility to all concerned.
It's in the AMM, company procedures - no excuse.
It gives visibility and responsibility to all concerned.
It's in the AMM, company procedures - no excuse.
All this does is finger the blame
You can't eliminate human error, all you can do is mitigate the effects
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brighton
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this does is finger the blame
If I replace a Rudder Travel Limiter Actuator, (as it's a popular subject) I sign for it in the appropriate paperwork, I take the responsibility. If I open the engine cowls to replace the IDG I take responsibility. I follow the procedures and making the appropriate tech log entries. Opening and closing the cowls is part of that procedure. If I don't follow the AMM and the company policy then I'm breaking the law - simple.
If there's an entry in the tech log that refers to the cowls being opened when reviewing the tech log the pilots can easily see what work has been done and have a good look on his walk around.
Unfortunately basic airmanship has been forgotten about in an effort to drive down costs. Fewer staff, less qualified and less experienced.
Filler Dent
Have you read the report on Airbus A319-131, G-EUOE, 24 May 2013?
Viewable here...
You forgot
"Carry out verification check of ENG #1 cowl latches"
"Verification check carried out of ENG #1 cowl latches, all secure."
It's in the AMM, company procedures - no excuse.
Have you read the report on Airbus A319-131, G-EUOE, 24 May 2013?
Viewable here...
If you open the cowls, you put an entry in the Tech log.
"ENG #1 cowls opened for .........whatever"
When you shut them you close the entry.
"ENG #1 cowls closed, secured and latched satisfactory"
Simple.
It gives visibility and responsibility to all concerned.
It's in the AMM, company procedures - no excuse.
"ENG #1 cowls opened for .........whatever"
When you shut them you close the entry.
"ENG #1 cowls closed, secured and latched satisfactory"
Simple.
It gives visibility and responsibility to all concerned.
It's in the AMM, company procedures - no excuse.
"Carry out verification check of ENG #1 cowl latches"
"Verification check carried out of ENG #1 cowl latches, all secure."
It's in the AMM, company procedures - no excuse.
Last edited by TURIN; 3rd Dec 2015 at 18:22.
We're going round and round in ever-decreasing circles here.
Yes, clearly if everyone did everything by the book, we wouldn't have a problem with departing cowls. But obviously they don't always, and as a consequence we do.
Simply saying "well, they should do", or "I do, why can't everyone else?" isn't particularly helpful unless it's accompanied by practical suggestions as to how that can be made to happen.
Maybe you're on to something, lock up a few engineers pour encourager les autres, but somehow I don't see that working either.
Yes, clearly if everyone did everything by the book, we wouldn't have a problem with departing cowls. But obviously they don't always, and as a consequence we do.
Simply saying "well, they should do", or "I do, why can't everyone else?" isn't particularly helpful unless it's accompanied by practical suggestions as to how that can be made to happen.
If I don't follow the AMM and the company policy then I'm breaking the law - simple.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Asia
Age: 68
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Calvin Hops.
Flight crew walk arounds are cursory checks; final absolute checks must be a maintenance function.
Eg: If for any reason a departure is delayed by last minute loading and the loading truck unknowingly punctures or gouges the fuselage, the flight crew cannot be aware of that! Only the final THOROUGH INSPECTION by the maintenance crew can ensure absolutely nothing unacceptable.
The captain signs acceptance well before doors finally closed.
Unless we want to flight and maintenance logs to be signed after a walk around inspection by captain just before start...it would be an interesting new procedure. Then someone would want captains to inspect every cargo loading, every DG or NOTOC items. Damn it, check fueling panel latches as well! Check doors properly closed by accessing CCTV pictures through iPads as well........👿
Flight crew walk arounds are cursory checks; final absolute checks must be a maintenance function.
Eg: If for any reason a departure is delayed by last minute loading and the loading truck unknowingly punctures or gouges the fuselage, the flight crew cannot be aware of that! Only the final THOROUGH INSPECTION by the maintenance crew can ensure absolutely nothing unacceptable.
The captain signs acceptance well before doors finally closed.
Unless we want to flight and maintenance logs to be signed after a walk around inspection by captain just before start...it would be an interesting new procedure. Then someone would want captains to inspect every cargo loading, every DG or NOTOC items. Damn it, check fueling panel latches as well! Check doors properly closed by accessing CCTV pictures through iPads as well........👿
Flight crew walk arounds are cursory checks; final absolute checks must be a maintenance function.
Eg: If for any reason a departure is delayed by last minute loading and the loading truck unknowingly punctures or gouges the fuselage, the flight crew cannot be aware of that! Only the final THOROUGH INSPECTION by the maintenance crew can ensure absolutely nothing unacceptable.
Eg: If for any reason a departure is delayed by last minute loading and the loading truck unknowingly punctures or gouges the fuselage, the flight crew cannot be aware of that! Only the final THOROUGH INSPECTION by the maintenance crew can ensure absolutely nothing unacceptable.
Now, how are you going to re-employ all those maintenance crew who lost their jobs when flight crew took over that function (for a nominal fee
)?
On some/many turnarounds these days, there are no engineers, so the pilots must perform a proper walkaround check. Once airborne, we can't pull over to get out and check what's causing the funny noise.
Meanwhile the loose cowl might have just severed the fuel line or damaged the FADEC, so now you are down to one engine, or possibly none. Pretty stupid really, since a two second check of each cowling would have prevented all that from happening
Meanwhile the loose cowl might have just severed the fuel line or damaged the FADEC, so now you are down to one engine, or possibly none. Pretty stupid really, since a two second check of each cowling would have prevented all that from happening
