BA 787 Nosewheel collapse @ LHR
Uplinker
"This incident did not involve an aircraft in flight - so there was no immediacy required and the nose gear pin was checked by more than one engineer on three separate occasions, if I've read the report correctly !?"
The report is a tad ambiguous on that point.
The engineer confirmed several times to the flight deck that the pins had been fitted. Given that he had fitted the MLG pins himself, watched his colleague fitting the nose pin, and could see all 5 streamers dangling, it's by no means certain that each confirmation was preceded by an additional check.
"This incident did not involve an aircraft in flight - so there was no immediacy required and the nose gear pin was checked by more than one engineer on three separate occasions, if I've read the report correctly !?"
The report is a tad ambiguous on that point.
The engineer confirmed several times to the flight deck that the pins had been fitted. Given that he had fitted the MLG pins himself, watched his colleague fitting the nose pin, and could see all 5 streamers dangling, it's by no means certain that each confirmation was preceded by an additional check.
And they had used steps to fit the MLG PINS,so why not the NLG...Mech1 obviously did not check M2 had put the pin in the correct hole.....!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Here and there....currently here.
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
3 Posts
All I've got in my mind at the moment a picture of a number of Engineers reading this thread, rolling their eyes at some of the comments of non-Engineers about how perfect they would be at doing our job and they would never make this mistake, or have the solution. If any of you are 787 pilots, why have you never noticed this Murphy factor on your aircraft when you check the pins are removed? Did you actually look at the right hole, or just check there was no flag hanging down? To be honest, I've fitted the down lock pins to B787 NLGs numerous times and it has made me wonder if I got right 100% of the time as I wasn't aware of this issue until this event, despite over thirty years line maintenance experience! There by the grace of God/imaginary being go I????
"Blame is better to give than to receive" - Neil Peart, Freewill.
"Blame is better to give than to receive" - Neil Peart, Freewill.
Last edited by Tom Sawyer; 25th Jul 2021 at 06:23. Reason: Add quote
Spot on Tom.
As I alluded to above, anyone is capable of making the simplist of mistakes.
As I alluded to above, anyone is capable of making the simplist of mistakes.
As an outsider I'd suggest a green painted pin and a green hole. (And I'm obviously prepared to hear that it's red because it's been done this way since the Wright Flyer got retracts).
I've got to be honest, I don't use steps for either the mains or nose. 😏
"Tom Sawyer: All I've got in my mind at the moment [is] a picture of a number of Engineers reading this thread, rolling their eyes at some of the comments of non-Engineers about how perfect they would be at doing our job and they would never make this mistake, or have the solution."
Agreed, (am not a 787 pilot), but I don't think we are claiming that we never make mistakes, (I've made some howlers).
It just seems rather foolhardy of the manufacturer and operator that; knowing about the problem, an indication of some sort was not applied to all the aircraft until the wrong hole could be blocked off by the official mod. Or a photo and a warning printed in the engineer's notes for this procedure. Or even simply a photo emailed to all engineers. Do engineers receive an equivalent to our NOTAMS and Ops notices?
Agreed, (am not a 787 pilot), but I don't think we are claiming that we never make mistakes, (I've made some howlers).
It just seems rather foolhardy of the manufacturer and operator that; knowing about the problem, an indication of some sort was not applied to all the aircraft until the wrong hole could be blocked off by the official mod. Or a photo and a warning printed in the engineer's notes for this procedure. Or even simply a photo emailed to all engineers. Do engineers receive an equivalent to our NOTAMS and Ops notices?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Here and there....currently here.
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
3 Posts
We don't get anything directly from the manufacturer of the aircraft. Most companies will issue Tech Notices or some variation on this title to provide us information for awareness based on Service Bulletins, Incidents, Trends, Airworthiness Notices, Modifications and the suchlike. The problem comes that whoever receives that information in Tech Services or Engineering will deem how important it is for it to be highlighted and disseminated. Urgent information should be put out within days, or stuff could take weeks. There is also the issue that different operators will have a different view to one another. Last year I had a notice from one operator regarding B773 centre fuel tank gauging that required the panel door cycling post refuel. I got another notice from a different operator with the same information probably 2 months later as they had assessed it as not as urgent or took longer to process it.
It isn't really viable for us to get the information direct from the OEM as, in my case for example, I'm licensed on 6 types with about 10 engine combinations and 4 authorities, so I'd probably be snowed under with notices and information, some of which could be irrelevant depending on aircraft mod status, config, line or base maintenance info and duplicate information from multiple sources.
It isn't really viable for us to get the information direct from the OEM as, in my case for example, I'm licensed on 6 types with about 10 engine combinations and 4 authorities, so I'd probably be snowed under with notices and information, some of which could be irrelevant depending on aircraft mod status, config, line or base maintenance info and duplicate information from multiple sources.
The AD came out in January 2020, before the pandemic, when the industry was still running full speed. The 787 has been the most used type in the fleet in the intervening time. In fact the issue was originally described in a Boeing Service Bulletin in March 2019. I wonder how many other 2019 Service Bulletin's the airline has not yet got round to.
The AD also came out when Alex "Every day I think of ways to save money" Cruz was still CEO at the airline. I suspect any AD with 36 months to comply was under instructions from the top not to even order the parts until July 2021. Note the accident took place less than a month before the final compliance date. It's a shame the AAIB did not ask to see the forward maintenance schedule for this aircraft (and all the other 787s) in the days ahead for when it was scheduled to be fitted.
The AD also came out when Alex "Every day I think of ways to save money" Cruz was still CEO at the airline. I suspect any AD with 36 months to comply was under instructions from the top not to even order the parts until July 2021. Note the accident took place less than a month before the final compliance date. It's a shame the AAIB did not ask to see the forward maintenance schedule for this aircraft (and all the other 787s) in the days ahead for when it was scheduled to be fitted.
Last edited by WHBM; 1st Aug 2021 at 22:57.
Thanks Tom. Licensed on 10 types would be all the more reason for a warning to be added to the procedure notes, I would have thought?, (but not up to you personally, I realise).
I remember when I was a new F/O; very innocently asking an engineer if they followed check-lists like us pilots. The guy said, "No, we use common sense"................I hoped he was joking !
@WHBM, Ah, yes, the classic case of a CEO seeing just numbers on a spreadsheet. "If we don't do X, this number will get smaller. Therefore we will spend less money and the airline* will get better..........."
Fantastic - "Safety is our number one concern", yeah, right.
*for 'the airline', substitute 'my bonus'.
I remember when I was a new F/O; very innocently asking an engineer if they followed check-lists like us pilots. The guy said, "No, we use common sense"................I hoped he was joking !
@WHBM, Ah, yes, the classic case of a CEO seeing just numbers on a spreadsheet. "If we don't do X, this number will get smaller. Therefore we will spend less money and the airline* will get better..........."
Fantastic - "Safety is our number one concern", yeah, right.
*for 'the airline', substitute 'my bonus'.
Jet II
"TURIN
I don't think I have ever used steps to put gear pins in on any aircraft - perhaps I was doing it wrong all those years.."
To use the terminology of the report, you clearly (both) belong to the "Mechanic 2" category, rather than that of "Mechanic 1".
"TURIN
I don't think I have ever used steps to put gear pins in on any aircraft - perhaps I was doing it wrong all those years.."
To use the terminology of the report, you clearly (both) belong to the "Mechanic 2" category, rather than that of "Mechanic 1".
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In every company there is relentless pressure to de-skill at every level so that salaries can be kept as low as possible. Those who have technical skills and legal maintenance permissions become thinly spread, supervising more and more less-skilled workers. They cannot be everywhere at once. Sooner or later someone working for them makes a major boo-boo and this a fine example.
Meanwhile the company PR will continue to chant 'Safety is our first priority' and 'We are an industry leading centre of excellence'. It was very lucky no-one was under that 787 when it hit the ground.
Meanwhile the company PR will continue to chant 'Safety is our first priority' and 'We are an industry leading centre of excellence'. It was very lucky no-one was under that 787 when it hit the ground.
DaveReidUK
Nah, average height, but sprightly and good at climbing.
Nah, average height, but sprightly and good at climbing.
Just out of interest, what exactly is tested by cycling the gear handle if the intent is for the legs not to move? I thought doors could be operated separately for access purposes, and presumably the electrics could be put through some kind of self-test routine without signalling retraction? Cycling the gear handle on the ground has always involved jacks in my experience, admittedly on much smaller aircraft.
It can be something as simple as resetting a glitch.