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

MAS A330 BNE leaves pitot covers on

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

MAS A330 BNE leaves pitot covers on

Old 20th Jul 2018, 13:23
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: A long way from home with lots more sand.
Age: 55
Posts: 424
Received 9 Likes on 2 Posts
Engineer who signed Pre-Flight complete-Fail, CM who did (did not) do walk around-Fail-or possibly procedures leading to them to expect to see Pitot Covers-then it should be like a steering bypass pin check-visual sighting required!, Pushback crew-Fail, CM1 and CM2 speed check during Take-off roll-Fail. We are all familiar with Swiss Cheese but this is beyond comprehension.
clear to land is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2018, 13:24
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 2 Posts
Not passing judgment but there seems to be plenty of cheese holes here.

Walk around.

Push back confirming all ground checks complete.

Taking off with not much air data in front of them.

An airspeed crosscheck during the roll?

Verry happy a safe outcome achieved (thank god), but there’s some serious **** to sort out.
Flava Saver is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2018, 13:42
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
A scary list of mistakes in a multiple protection environment.

I suspect that some of these are not human error but rather continuous fails over multiple flights.

I've seen three layers of protection not work in preventing an accident because

one layer was hidden from any in-service checks and only worked in the eyes of the board designer

one layer could not be relied on because the crew were not adequately trained in its use

and the last layer was just a common flaw with a known failure rate of one in a 1000 flights
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2018, 14:09
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Out of a Suitcase
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The correct procedure should be to make an entry in the Technical Log that Pitot covers have been installed. Same procedure for Gear Pins.

Some Airlines do not have such simple common sense procedures in place.

I've had 2 cases where the Gear Pins were present in the cockpit and during the walkaround I discovered another set of Gear Pins had been installed! Asian Airline.
Eric Janson is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2018, 14:48
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by EDLB
You can see even a third cover. Makes me wonder why they did not abort. How did they check the rotation speed? Beside looking out of the window the airspeed indicator is the most watched instrument on the TO-run. At least for me.
Third most - airspeed and engines are #1 and #2. Peripheral vision takes care of most of the 'outside'.
misd-agin is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2018, 14:55
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by student88
I bet you're all such perfect pilots who never make a mistake.

Why are you assuming it was the FOs walk around? The most 'basic' of errors are the easiest ones to make..
Most guys pay special attention to the items that have killed people.

The covers were missed on the walk around, the lack of airspeed indication was missed on initial acceleration, the airspeed check either didn't occur or the lack of airspeed was ignored(both are hard to believe).

It also means that the pilots either didn't look at their airspeed indicators for the entire takeoff roll or for some unbelievable reason ignored the lack of airspeed indications.

Missing, or ignoring the actions I described, is unacceptable behavior among professionals. Please stay a student pilot as the rest of us are are trying to even after decades in the business.
misd-agin is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2018, 15:14
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Incident: Malaysia A333 at Brisbane on Jul 18th 2018, unreliable airspeed, hydraulic leak

I presume this is the incident, if it is, then leaving the pitot covers on would hardly have caused a hydraulic leak and nose wheel steering issues. It seems there is more to it.

The picture is simply an aircraft that appears to be on a ramp with the covers on, how do we know it flew with them on? All it takes is one numpty to invent something.
Officer Kite is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2018, 15:14
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Among camels and dunes
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A while back, another middle eastern airline (nameless) had a wasp build up during the turn around time, and returned for landing with no pitot, found blocked by wasps and sand particles.

I can only imagine that it is procedure to protect the pitot's by putting their covers on whilst on turn around, which were forgotten by a few links in the chain of departure.
Jetjock330 is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2018, 15:41
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 725
Received 10 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Officer Kite
then leaving the pitot covers on would hardly have caused a hydraulic leak and nose wheel steering issues. It seems there is more to it.
A single root cause could be that the person(s) who were supposed to catch the pitot covers on a walk-around also missed some gear locking pins.
EEngr is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2018, 23:48
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 4 seasons hotel
Posts: 271
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
How about years of beancounters management that cut cost that lead to outsourcing of operational maintenance to ground handling companies that have no pride or interests in the airline brand name? Plus the lack of continuous audit on operational standard of these contracted GHA?

Blaiming that two guys at the last line of defence is myopic!
flightleader is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 01:13
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
During operations, would it perhaps be simpler and safer to just keep the pitot heat on even when the aircraft is on the ground?
As is, they seem to be pretty susceptible to fouling, from water or wasps, resulting in serious damage and loss of life
etudiant is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 01:31
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,201
Received 35 Likes on 19 Posts
Walk around is completed with the covers on.
maggot is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 01:38
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
It also means that the pilots either didn't look at their airspeed indicators for the entire takeoff roll or for some unbelievable reason ignored the lack of airspeed indications
Boeing have the 80 knot call check during the take off roll. I always check the ground speed at the same time for a "reasonableness" check. I have not flown an Airbus but understand they have a 100 knot check during the take off roll. The problem with 100 knots is that it is getting into the high speed regime. If something is picked up, such as significant difference between the ASI readings at that speed check, it doesn't leave much time to decide what action to take, as V1 for example, is much closer. I would have thought the 80 knot call recommended by Boeing means the problem is caught earlier and action taken earlier re keep going or rejecting. It is common to see in the simulator the PM calling 80 knots as an afterthought even though the actual IAS was rapidly passing 90 knots at the time he called 80. Poor airmanship indeed.
Boeing recommend that that if an SOP call (such as 80 knots on take off) is not forthcoming by the PM for whatever reason, the PF should make it and give the actual reading he sees. e.g. "Passing 94 knots my side." . Good airmanship.
Judd is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 01:46
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,994
Received 15 Likes on 11 Posts
Chuboy:—Nose Wheel steering on the 330 is Green HYD, not yellow.
With alternate gear extension you lose Nose wheel steering.
Expected with All 3 ADR’s off.

What I’d like to know is how did they ever manage to takeoff without any IAS at all?
What speed did they rotate at??????

There must be more to this story surely?


Last edited by ACMS; 21st Jul 2018 at 01:57.
ACMS is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 02:14
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aus
Posts: 571
Received 72 Likes on 25 Posts
Not familiar with the Airbus, but I have to ask the question.. how did they call a V1 or Rotate call if they weren't getting any speed indications.
junior.VH-LFA is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 06:16
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,582
Received 86 Likes on 52 Posts
Probably confused when there were no readings at the stage they would expect to see 100 knots, by the time they realised what was going on they decided to take it into the air rather than risk a high speed stop with no idea where they were in relation to V1.

Agree with the statement about an 80 kt call out in post #33, on medium jets at light weight 100 kts isn't that far off V1, particularly at some airports which were designed with turbo props in mind rather than jets.

I will admit that when I first heard of the incident I assumed it must have been the static vent covers which were left in place as normal airspeed readings would be given until the aircraft was climbing. I didn't think the crew of a heavy jet would get airborne without any speed checks.
krismiler is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 07:22
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,201
Likes: 0
Received 24 Likes on 10 Posts
I will admit that when I first heard of the incident I assumed it must have been the static vent covers which were left in place as normal airspeed readings would be given until the aircraft was climbing
In the 737 Classic simulator, the indications of a captain's blocked static vent are quite dramatic after lift off; but not before.

When the co-pilot calls "Positive Rate" (his static vent is OK), the first thing noticed is no movement of the captain's main altimeter and his IVSI. Yet we have often seen the captain calling for gear up without confirming his altimeter reading, simply because he is reacting to a call from the PM. A few seconds, later a windshear warning sounds even though there is no windshear. That warning is because the captains airspeed indicator stops moving and starts to go backwards fooling the system into thinking a loss of airspeed is a likely windshear.

With the aircraft climbing normally, but with captain's airspeed indicator needle steadily reducing due to the blocked static vent, (and no movement on his main altimeter and IVSI), eventually his stick shaker actuates and the ASI gradually falls to zero. Unless the pilot has seen this phenomena during his simulator training (and many have not), there is guaranteed confusion as to what is happening. In other words a grand WTF moment. A quick check of the ground speed reading can ascertain the problem and decisions made.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 07:57
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Folks,
How to fool the system:

Quite a while ago now, in one day at YSSY, three aeroplanes got airborne, the gear would not retract ---- two from one airline, the third, as I recall, anther airline handled by the former.

Same reason in all cases, gear pins not removed by the same departure "engineer".

Another example, one of mine, nose gear pins left in at EGLL, a very tidy minded "engineer" rolled up the red flags and held them with a rubber band "so the greasy flags don't leave greasy streaks on the U/C legs"?? Rather defeats the purpose of having bleeding great long red flags, doesn't it??

Another personal experience, doing the walk-around on a B744 ---- no flag at all on the nose gear pin, at least I was following what I always taught trainees ---- look for the "hole in the hole", not just the absence of the flag --- which is why you need a real torch, not a toy. (Ain't modern LED globes great)

Also on the B744, I have had pitot covers, with no flags, left on, to be discovered by me on the walk around,the post facto claim was that strong winds must have torn them off.

In short, if it can be done, one day, somebody will it.

But, in this case, it is certainly a trail of holes all lining up ---- proving anything is possible. The tec. crew is the last line of defense, on the face of it, looks like they screwed up.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 09:06
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A Tech Log info entry that covers were installed would have been useful. I see that sometimes for the gear pins when they are used at unusual moments.
And pitot covers are much more critical then the pins..
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 09:27
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: europe
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by junior.VH-LFA
Not familiar with the Airbus, but I have to ask the question.. how did they call a V1 or Rotate call if they weren't getting any speed indications.
Not familiar with the type pitot covers, but could it be that the heaters burned through the covers enough to give some speed indication?

I've seen some pretty burned pitot covers.
arketip is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.