Singapore B744 in bad tailstrike @ Aukland NZ
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Page 69 - 3rd rock
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is disturbing to read alleged comments from ANZ pilots using the term "pilot error" in this or any incident, before any investigative information has been released.
If accurate reporting, and that is debatable, it seems their memories are all too short.
Was there not a rush to blame the late Capt. Collins, commander of the ill-fated ANZ DC-10 which flew into Mt. Erebus in November 1979, by the then Chief investigator?
Did not the late Justice Mahon of the NZ High Court label the attempts to blame the crew as a "litany of lies", when in fact the aircraft was some 20 odd miles off course as a result of a navigational error on the flight plan produced to the pilot by the ANZ navigation department?
It ill behoves professional pilots to leap into blaming professional colleagues before ALL the facts are in hand.
There but for the grace of God.
If accurate reporting, and that is debatable, it seems their memories are all too short.
Was there not a rush to blame the late Capt. Collins, commander of the ill-fated ANZ DC-10 which flew into Mt. Erebus in November 1979, by the then Chief investigator?
Did not the late Justice Mahon of the NZ High Court label the attempts to blame the crew as a "litany of lies", when in fact the aircraft was some 20 odd miles off course as a result of a navigational error on the flight plan produced to the pilot by the ANZ navigation department?
It ill behoves professional pilots to leap into blaming professional colleagues before ALL the facts are in hand.
There but for the grace of God.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Regarding the ZFW - stanard procedure would be to input the PLANNED ZFW and this would be shown on the CFP, when the load sheet arrived any adjustment required would be made.
The figure shown on the CFP was usually very close and any MAJOR change would have been passed to the crew in case they wanted to change the fuel load.
The pax load is well known beforehand and varies little, the cargo load can vary a lot if it was not fully ready etc. etc. and a pallet left off, such changes would be notified to load control and when the load sheet was given to the captain it would show the final, and if necessary, revised figure, this figure would also probably have already been passed to the aircraft via the company frequency, the captain would then input the revised figure.
An incorrectly insertwd ZFW figure of, say, 90K should have thrown up a number of alerts including unrealistic V speeds and trim setting.
The figure shown on the CFP was usually very close and any MAJOR change would have been passed to the crew in case they wanted to change the fuel load.
The pax load is well known beforehand and varies little, the cargo load can vary a lot if it was not fully ready etc. etc. and a pallet left off, such changes would be notified to load control and when the load sheet was given to the captain it would show the final, and if necessary, revised figure, this figure would also probably have already been passed to the aircraft via the company frequency, the captain would then input the revised figure.
An incorrectly insertwd ZFW figure of, say, 90K should have thrown up a number of alerts including unrealistic V speeds and trim setting.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from :
http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/bel...SIAscrape.html
A/c rotated prematurely below Vmu (min unstick spd) for its 385,000lbs brakes release wt, exceeding body angle 12.5deg. Forced to land heavily overweight after tailstrike caused APU fire indicn. O’shot first heavy appch
A quoted weight such as this, 385,000lbs brakes release wt, would reflect very poorly on your site's accuracy.
Regards,
HectorusRex
http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/bel...SIAscrape.html
A/c rotated prematurely below Vmu (min unstick spd) for its 385,000lbs brakes release wt, exceeding body angle 12.5deg. Forced to land heavily overweight after tailstrike caused APU fire indicn. O’shot first heavy appch
A quoted weight such as this, 385,000lbs brakes release wt, would reflect very poorly on your site's accuracy.
Regards,
HectorusRex
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hectorus,
Before doubting the accuracy of this site check the site you quote. 385,000lbs is about 175,000kgs; the basic weight (no load no fuel) of a 744 is about 160,000kgs.
Not unless the kg/lbs conversion is the problem!!! Just kidding....not speculating...honest....
Tool time...I see no posts from AirNZ pilots; to which posts do you refer??? Me thinks you protest too much
Before doubting the accuracy of this site check the site you quote. 385,000lbs is about 175,000kgs; the basic weight (no load no fuel) of a 744 is about 160,000kgs.
Not unless the kg/lbs conversion is the problem!!! Just kidding....not speculating...honest....
Tool time...I see no posts from AirNZ pilots; to which posts do you refer??? Me thinks you protest too much
Actually, I haven't seen a B744 with upgraded PES with basic weight (bare a/c with all legally required bits but no payload or fuel) below 170,000Kg. B744 with which I am familiar have a min in flt wt limit of about 170,000Kg.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tool Time Two
Get up to date, it was the findings of Mr Justice Mahon that ended up being discarded by the Court Of Appeal then the Privy Council. How could anyone who has never had anything to do with aviation even be asked to conduct the enquiry let alone be expected to come up with acceptable findings.
Prospector
Get up to date, it was the findings of Mr Justice Mahon that ended up being discarded by the Court Of Appeal then the Privy Council. How could anyone who has never had anything to do with aviation even be asked to conduct the enquiry let alone be expected to come up with acceptable findings.
Prospector
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: .
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not doubting you theory big fella, just noting the exceptional route performance if you are correct. 400 punters and 30t of cargo could make it possible.
Got to admit though, landing with 30t+ of gas seems a bit much if the Sing fuel policy stories are true.
Got to admit though, landing with 30t+ of gas seems a bit much if the Sing fuel policy stories are true.
Guest
Posts: n/a
jtr Not sure what stories you have heard re SIA fuel policy, I've seen several people on PPRuNe suggesting it is 'tight', is that what you heard? If so I'm afraid someone has been telling you large porky pies!
Ask the majority of the ex BA, QF and CX pilots who have flown the B744 with SIA and they will tell you it is a most generous policy. Even then, in ten years on the a/c if ever I felt I needed more fuel I took it and my decision was never questioned once.
Ask the majority of the ex BA, QF and CX pilots who have flown the B744 with SIA and they will tell you it is a most generous policy. Even then, in ten years on the a/c if ever I felt I needed more fuel I took it and my decision was never questioned once.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I trust that Liam has now actually read what was written on the Safety site quoted, and realised who made the mistake.
The 'suggested' weight is similar to the empty weight of a B744, and if there was confusion on that site with mixed weights, then is it also possible that the load sheet may have had similar confusion?
For Prospector, there are many good documents that would suggest that your assessment of Justice Peter Mahon's findings are seriously in error.
The 'suggested' weight is similar to the empty weight of a B744, and if there was confusion on that site with mixed weights, then is it also possible that the load sheet may have had similar confusion?
For Prospector, there are many good documents that would suggest that your assessment of Justice Peter Mahon's findings are seriously in error.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hectorus,
Sorry there me old, I did look on the site however I homed in on the "your site" comment and thought because you are (presumably) addressing all of us, you meant the weights mentioned in pprune were in error...
Sorry there me old, I did look on the site however I homed in on the "your site" comment and thought because you are (presumably) addressing all of us, you meant the weights mentioned in pprune were in error...
SQ having a bad run, as airlines often do. This morning at approx 0300 local one of their B777s gently rolled off stand D48 (?) at WSSS and into the grass. Either unattended, or attended by someone who couldn't manufacture brake pressure!
Kiwi PPRuNer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: rockingham, western australia
Age: 42
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
last time i looked, the issue of this thread was about the singapore airlines jet, not about something that happened 24 yrs ago, give it a rest allready, some of us had family involved in that,
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that P1 and P2 were ex A340. Both had limited experience on the B744. (P3 reasonably experienced on 744, but his attention may have been diverted elsewhere.)The weights entered into the FMC would not have been inappropriate for an A340, i.e. about 90-100 tonnes adrift, and therefore did not trigger alarm bells as far as ball park figures are concerned. Yes, they should have had a gut feeling that something didn't feel right, but........
Please accept that this is only what I have heard through the grapevine; I don't wish to prejudge. Almost 400 people walked away from what could have been a catastrophe. IF the crew erred in the first instance, they put the ship back on the ground with no injuries or loss of life.
Please accept that this is only what I have heard through the grapevine; I don't wish to prejudge. Almost 400 people walked away from what could have been a catastrophe. IF the crew erred in the first instance, they put the ship back on the ground with no injuries or loss of life.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Liam, no offense, and I probably didn't express myself as clearly as I should have.
For Prospector, I venture to suggest that Mr Justice Mahon's findings were NOT found to be in error either by the NZ Court of Appeal or the Privy Council.
It was his ability to make certain statements that was successfully challenged.
Regards,
HectorusRex
For Prospector, I venture to suggest that Mr Justice Mahon's findings were NOT found to be in error either by the NZ Court of Appeal or the Privy Council.
It was his ability to make certain statements that was successfully challenged.
Regards,
HectorusRex