Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Interesting Air France A340 - Bogota Incident

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Interesting Air France A340 - Bogota Incident

Old 20th Jun 2017, 17:32
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,350
Wiedehoph

fan rpm is also a good indicator of thrust as you generally notice when a blade is missing
yea, the fan RPM would go up if it was the loss of a fan blade (loss of fan flow)
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2017, 19:51
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 54
Posts: 1,617
I muss confess that I am a little puzzled that even the most recent offerings don't have some sort of take-off performance vs actual GPS position vs airport config monitoring system. Seems fairly doable with current technologies and could help with various scenario (most obvious being wrong runaway start position and wrong weight used for performance calculations).

Now I understand that each system will bring its own issues in the mix and the certification issues. But would still be worth IMHO.
atakacs is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2017, 22:10
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,058
Takeoff performance monitoring - PPRuNe
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 20th Jun 2017, 22:17
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 54
Posts: 1,617
Thanks

Clearly not a new idea (although I don't see the use of GPS being discussed, nor any compeling argument not to do it).

In terms of UI I can imagine a green / yellow / red gauge displaying the delta between actual performance & position vs expected.
atakacs is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2017, 01:08
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 751
There are reports that the audio has 'pitch, pitch' alerts at about 31 seconds into the takeoff.
How is that even possible during a takeoff?
etudiant is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2017, 03:59
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,020
Kaypam, was it similar to this?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2017, 05:42
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 55
Posts: 34
35' is the requirement after losing thrust on 1 engine, nest ce pas?
35' for a dry runway, 15' for a wet cert ac on a wet runway.

In regards to obstacles, the OCA is the same, there is not a difference between all engine and EO clearance areas. The area assume a min perf gradient

In the event of an engine failure, continued adherence to departure procedures may not be possible as SIDs or DPs do not necessarily assure that engine-out obstacle clearance requirements are met.
The most common procedure to maximize takeoff weight when significant obstacles are present along the normal departure route is to use an EOSID in the event of an engine failure on takeoff. If the EOSID routing is different from a SID or DP, then the obstacles along this track are used to determine the maximum allowable takeoff weight for that runway. Note that often the path of the EOSID will not overfly the area where the aerodrome operator has provided an obstacle survey.


Net climb min requirements are the same, EO or not. Up to performance guys to make sure EO perf meets the min. OCA. This typically means weight limiting the ac to meet the SID path when OE, because the obstacles have been evaluated along this corridor.

Can be EO, above temp..whatever, the obstacle clearance area is the same for all.

As a note: Some airlines have purchased specific high temp and/or EO procedures that include obstacle analysis based on ac performance, rather than limiting loading based on the criteria min climb or temperatures

Last edited by underfire; 21st Jun 2017 at 05:57.
underfire is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2017, 05:51
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 222
Is this type notoriously prone to tailstrike on T/O, so that you "always", deliberately, tend to rotate slower than the Airbus nominal rate?
pax2908 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2017, 06:20
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 512
NO! Same technique.
iceman50 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2017, 07:17
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: EDDM
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by gearlever View Post
The BFU (?) jumped in...., French plane in Colombia....
Lufthansa operates a similar type (A343) to BOG on a regular basis and changed their procedures to better operate out of that station. LH had a tailwind situation in November 2016 there: http://avherald.com/h?article=4a1568b4&opt=1
oliver2002 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2017, 09:57
  #31 (permalink)  

DOVE
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 73
Posts: 1,187
MTOW

If I remember well the maximum takeoff weight of an airliner, must be equal to or less than the maximum structural,
and such that its T.O. run is equal to or shorter than:
- Take-Off Distance;
- Take-Off Run;
- Accelerate-Stop Distance,
AND: WITH ALL ENGINES OPERATING, TAKE OFF DISTANCE PLUS 15%
Regards
DOVES is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2017, 23:28
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
The airline reported a similiar occurrence happened also on Apr 4th 2017 to the same aircraft.
This sort of points back to the frame itself, unless the same crew was involved in that event as well.

I'll avoid making "curvature of the earth required for takeoff" comments, because it would be really, really interesting to find out how and why this happened.

LH had a tailwind situation in November 2016
This, I guess, could also be a factor, inspite of what METARS reports.

Sudden gust, and all that.

Let the discussion run on!
rottenray is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2017, 05:52
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 62
Posts: 229
Difficult to see this being a 'frame' issue.

There should be sufficient data recorded for AF/Airbus to determine what caused the problem(s).

I might be over simplifying things but isn't there a time/speed gradient for weight/power/available runway length settings - this would pick up brakes being on/power settings incorrect.
Admittedly this wouldn't pick up starting at the wrong intersection or incorrect weight being input.
Momoe is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2017, 06:45
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,058
Originally Posted by Momoe View Post
Difficult to see this being a 'frame' issue
That's anybody's guess. The quote from Avherald:

"The airline reported a similiar occurrence happened also on Apr 4th 2017 to the same aircraft"
is somewhat ambiguous, to say the least.

It's not clear whether they are referring to the same airframe (F-GLZU) or merely the same type (A343) and/or whether the "similar occurrence" also happened at Bogota.

If also at BOG, it can't have been the same airframe on the date quoted.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 22nd Jun 2017, 07:10
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 74
Same airframe, also in BOG.
fab777 is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2017, 07:52
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,058
Originally Posted by fab777 View Post
Same airframe, also in BOG.
Thanks - then it must be the date reported by Avherald that's wrong, as F-GLZU was flying the North Atlantic on that day.

That aside, don't attach too much significance to the same tail number being involved on both occasions. It may well just be a coincidence, given that it has operated more than 20 CDG/BOG rotations so far this year.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 22nd Jun 2017, 10:00
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Forest
Posts: 135
Having all these gizmos is all very well, but there is no real substitute for a good rule of thumb and a knowledge of the real (actual - not what they tell you) weight of the aircraft. I have very clear recollections of all sorts of unknowns being shoved into the forward hold at BOG and only coming to light because of my insistence. Bring back STAN of the VC9! At least you would then know the real weight.
Prober is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2017, 12:34
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 45
I've been in a major airline that "routinely" lied about cargo weights. Vancouver photographers knew that this airline would always rotate right at the far end of the runway, providing them with some nice photos. Aircraft would also never make performance altitudes, etc. I believe one crew insisted on all cargo being weighed upon arrival and it was found that there was a massive discrepancy in cargo weights. Lots of bluster from company but they knew what was going on and did nothing about it.
FlareArmed2 is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2017, 12:42
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,939
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
There are reports that the audio has 'pitch, pitch' alerts at about 31 seconds into the takeoff.
How is that even possible during a takeoff?
What are the necessary conditions to normally trigger such audio warning ?
Does such warning limit in a way the pitch control ?
CONF iture is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2017, 13:07
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 42
Posts: 599
744F MAC & Wt display was pretty accurate and was usually close to the L/S figures, except when it was U/S (often)
Ex Cargo Clown is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.