Air Transat crew not to blame in A330 emergency landing in the Azores
 

Investigators Redirect Focus On Air Transat Emergency Landing In Azores. .

Well, maybe the cockpit crew wasn't out to lunch after all. It could have been a software glitch that made things more than confusing for the crew of Air Transat's Flight 236 and ultimately led to an emergency dead-stick landing in the Azores last August, after the jet ran out of fuel over the Atlantic Ocean. According to a report in the Canadian Press, Portuguese investigators are now focusing on aircraft system software that provides information to the cockpit crew. Investigators suspect the software mistakenly identified a fuel leak as a fuel imbalance, prompting the crew to respond erroneously to the situation. The Air Transat flight with 291 pax and 13 crewmembers aboard landed safely August 24 at a military air base in the isolated islands of the Azores. "What we're discussing very carefully is whether the information provided by the computer to the crew is the best information to deal with the problem, and we have some serious doubts with that," Frederico Serra said in an interview from Lisbon, Portugal. "There is something wrong with this system. There is something that was not given to crew on time." After the incident, Transport Canada ordered all Air Transat pilots to take "remedial" fuel-management training that would stress the need to divert to the nearest possible airport at the first signs of engine-related emergency. Now it seems the mistake was not in the crew response, but in the bad information the software gave them.

<img src="redface.gif" border="0">

A fuel leak can initially appear as a fuel imabalance on the ECAM fuel page.

A quick check is to add the FUEL USED to the FOB to see if it tallies with the DEPARTURE FUEL. If not, something is amiss.

The QRH paper checklist for FUEL IMBALANCE is quite explicit in directing the reader to check if the condition is due to a fuel leak.

[ 03 February 2002: Message edited by: 320DRIVER ]</p>

I am offended by the headline you used for this thread, almost as much as I am by the inaccuracy of the article you have quoted.

This story must be taken with a huge grain of salt. The investigator has given no explanation as to the shortcomings of the ECAM system, or as to how the ECAM system should be set up to give information about a fuel leak. Given that there are so many places where a fuel leak could occur on any aircraft, especially one the size of the A330, just exactly what would he have the manufacturer do, put a leak sensor every 2 metres along every fuel line? Do they do the same thing with the hydraulic systems? Of course not!

The A330 ECAM gives ample information regarding a fuel leak, if the pilot takes the time to interpret the given information. Proper fuel monitoring and correct use of the QRH procedures for fuel imbalance would have prevented this accident, IMHO. For many years, pilots of far less sophisticated aircraft have been responsible for monitoring their fuel enroute, not only to verify the figures computed in the flight plan, but to monitor for any unexplained loss of fuel from the system. This is something that seems to have been missed on that nearly tragic night last summer. Makes me shiver just to think about it!

Scud

[ 03 February 2002: Message edited by: Scud Runner ]

[ 03 February 2002: Message edited by: Scud Runner ]</p>

In my limited experience I dont recall any EICAS or EICAM warning or caution for "fuel leak." The first indication would be fuel imbalance or possibly low fuel pressure, followed by the associated warnings and cautions for engine failure if you did not do something to keep motion lotion flowing to both power plants. Anyone come across a fuel leak caution or warning.? BTW, not trying to second guess the Transat guys as I dont have enough info and would`nt know what to do with it if I did.

Unfortunately, this incident highlights a growing trend within our industry. Blind adherance to checklists and procedures. As a check airman I am seeing more and more of this. And it concerns me. So many checklists are now saying if this light comes on, do this. Instead of investigating what the problem really is. One of the new major hot buttons for Crew Resource Management is how automation is taking flight crews out of the loop.

It is my experience that pilots rely on EICAS, rote checklists and full automation for one reason- that's how they're taught. The old "whole man" concept of teaching the full system first, then how to use it, is just harder and therefore not done.

I've met 3 MD-11 pilots in the last year, including one captain, who believed that it was a fly-by-wire aircraft. Eight weeks of training and they didn't even know that the control system is almost identical to the DC-10 (except for some stability augmentation).

Tan - close, the manual reversion is in case of flight computer failure. The cables operate the hydraulic surface rams. If you lose hydraulics, you are stuffed.

320 driver is right there is no ECAM wng for a fuel leak.It draws the pilots attn to a fuel imbalance and then the QRH

Sorry, I got posted before I was finished.. .The QRH tells the pilot to check for a fuel leak,something that was not done on this occasion.. .rick1128 this time you are wrong!This time the crew did not follow the drill.

Put the flight engineer back in the cockpit!

javelin

I don't think so but I will haul out my manuals and check. My recollection is that the hydraulic's are protected in this situation from a different source.

The beer is on me if I'm wrong...

APFDS, you wrote,

"rick1128 this time you are wrong!This time the crew did not follow the drill."

Could you enlighten us as to what information you have that allows you to make that kind of statement? . .There are a lot of people who would like to know.

HotDog is right, bring 'em back. A Flight Engineer would have caught this problem quick, IMHO.

Bin the Bus?

Aircraft=Complex machine.. .Pilot=Person who flies and navigates aircraft.. .Automation=System for controlling and monitoring aircraft systems.. .Engineer=Person who understands aircraft systems and the automation system.

As an industrial engineer we would never dream of operating a plant without an engineer close on hand to get it working when it goes wrong, never mind how much automation we have to help. Transplant that idea to an aircraft in Mid-Atlantic!

. .Bring back the flight engineer and we will all be safer (and feel safer).

[ 04 February 2002: Message edited by: Nihontraveller ]</p>

Nihon-Wish I could have flown the YS-11.

Bin the Bus? I've never been trained on an Airbus (although might be in the future), but no matter how advanced the technology on fly-by-wire series, the US airlines' economic advantage operating Airbus products (and their major foothold here) is mostly due to tax subsidies which are provided by so many European/British taxpayers.

The first major foothold in North America, or the USA, was 'allegedly' via kickbacks to some former airline CEO(s), via the 'alleged' CDU/CSU "Verbindung".

Suffa? Oft besoffen?

[ 04 February 2002: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]</p>

Thank God we still have some 747's flying that have a Flight Engineer.. .I avoid Airbus like the plague, and -400s if I can, on international flights, and I do a lot.. .Unfortunately, it's becoming harder to do all the time, but I keep asking, AND I let the relavent airline know I'm doing it!. .Pity Boeing didn't build more -300's. ."If it ain't a Classic Boeing, I ain't going!"

Flight Detent: What exactly is it about 2 man cockpits that scare you? The only 744 hull loss I can think of was SQ and an engineer would not have made much difference. A340/330s have caught fire on the ground, but that is because of engineers using hydraulics when they shouldn't right? And I remember a certain B727 where the engineer walked into the cockpit and pushed in a circuit breaker without saying anything first. If I were you I'd avoid engineers like the plague, and classics too. Especially in bad wx! Stick with the 'upgrades!' :)

Rumour has it that the engine was not shutdown because the Captain, who was a senior management pilot, was worried that Transat would lose their ETOPs clearance if that was done. Ha!

SDAC, I think you will find that the captain was not senior management.

I always feel delighted if someone seeks to relief our fellow pilots from being nailed onto the wall prematurely with the message:"pilot error".. .In this case a bit caution could be needed. Not that I mistrust Portuguese investigators. I very much mistrust the press report, indeed.

Never flown A-330, but Im shure, as in our other models, there is no ECAM message like "Fuel Leak" available. Good old ECAM did a fine job and mailed correctly:"Fuel Unbalance". As said by others, QRH should have helped. Let's see, what TSB of Canada will tell us, I understand they participate in the investigation. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

F/E or not is simply not the question here, right?. .They had none. :) :) :) . .Is this thread pushed ahead, if I express my personal sympathy with a 3 man cockpit (i.e + qualified F/E)? Than, I might grant you,it's nice to have someone who is doing all those work you are not dreaming of and is on deck, when problems arise and you need all assistance you might get.

Ignition override. .Hard for me to understand your english mixed with german words. I understand you still believe Airbus is paid by Europs taxpayer? Since this has been true when the company was founded, as far as I know Airbus is paying back this money for several years. In case you have other information, please give me a hint.. .Your other remark aims to an ex politician, who should have forced american airline ex CEO's to invent AB in US?. .Must be a joke or you underestimate the cleverness of american CEO's. . . :)

Yeah yeah, like the USAF ordering 100 767 tankers without any competition wasn't a subsidy to Boeing! Or those shifty American export tax breaks the World Trade Organisation recently ruled to be an illegal export subsidy.

Thread creep! :)

Tan & javelin - I think Tan's right. I seem to remember (on 340 anyway, and I think 330 is identical in this respect) mechanical back-up is just that - cables all the way.

Too lazy to try and find my FCOM ,under last year's revisions <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> but will ask our tech boffins.

Greetings Captain104: My comments were off-topic regarding Airbus technology.

But anyway, an article years ago in "The Wall Street Journal" claimed that a former CEO of a major US airline lost his "golden parachute" (worth millions?) during an airline buyout, because it was "alleged" that he had taken a bribe (Bestechung?) from Airbus, which is illegal under US law, with the help from a member of a certain government coalition, who was then also on the board of Airbus. That is what the article stated. The former CEO was probably the first US, or North American airline CEO to have ordered the A-320 series, according to the same newspaper article. It is best that I not mention, at least in public, the names of the two individuals.

For years I have found it very interesting that such foreign civil aircraft compete around the world (possibly at or below cost?) with the help of taxpayer subsidies, while at the same time, US tax dollars are not allowed to help US Boeing civilian aircraft (except for the development of the "707" Dash 80/KC-135 in the 50's) compete in the world market. If someone can show that this information is incorrect, then I will be glad to admit it, no sweat.

Somebody send me an e-mail if you want to find out who the two "alleged" guys are, etc. Y'all fly safe out there, and watch out for rock-filled mountains, Alpen, and so on.

Excuse me, I have a Microsoft 'mission' to fly, but first with the sluggish Wildcat or maybe the water-injected Hellcat or Corsair, if not the P-38?

[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]

[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]</p>

tired, Tan and Javelin,. .From my A321 FCOM:'Mechanical control of the THS is available from the pitch trim wheel at any time if either the green or yellow hydraulic system is functioning.' and: '3 independant hydraulic servojacks actuate the rudder. In automatic operation (yaw damping, turn coordination) a green servo actuator drives all 3 servojacks.. .Bottom line - you need hydraulics to stay alive!!. .Hope this helps.. .Cheers. .mcdhu

You can always use differential power, and power changes to control the aircraft. With good crew co-ordination we have landed an A320 on a runway fater a total hydraulic failure. (in the SIM). Admittedly, the SIM conditions are not exactly what you would find in real-life e.g. ever changing winds etc etc but it does look feasable.

[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: 320DRIVER ]</p>

Ignition Override,

Could you pull your head in, remember that Boeing was born from military technology that was paid for by the US tax payer. As others have pointed out the US tax payer is still paying for the 767...

Pprune does not need to become a us and them over the pond forum.

A level playing field does not exist in aviation, smart people work with it, others well...

Z

mcdhu. . . .Admittedly I haven't had the time to check my 340 FCOM, but it is rather interesting that five PPruner's have slightly different perspectives on the airworthiness of the Airbus series if it loses its hydraulic system. . . . .Whenever I'm faced with an airplane problem that I'm not 100% sure of the answer, I always try to put myself in the place of the aircraft designer. Would I have designed an aircraft that would not fly if I lost all my Hydraulics'? I don't think so...

Cheers...

Later model A330s or ones with updated software have an ECAM warning "FUEL FU/FOB DISCREPANCY" which comes up automatically if the difference between initial FOB and current FOB plus burn is more than 3500 kgs. The ECAM will say "FUEL LEAK - CONSIDER".

I doubt whether the Air Transat 330 would have had this update.

Kimoki. .Thank you for info ECAM A-330. Had no idea about later version: FUEL LEAK-CONSIDER. If they had'nt this modification, ok. If they had it, makes it even more complicated for investigators, right?

Ignition Override. .Nothing personal. If there was bribary related to aircraft deals in US, I dont know.. .Financial background of AB is complicated and not related to this thread. Anyway, shareholders are BAE systems and EADS and some info you get at <a href="http://www.finance.eads.net." target="_blank">http://www.finance.eads.net.</a>

BTW: Why should US Airforce crews not enjoy a nice AC like Boing 767? A bit support for Boing after Sep.11th shock is ok for me. On the other hand, the planned A-400M will be build and help EADS a bit. Why not? :) :) :)

[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: Captain104 ]</p>

I have just tried it in the 330 Sim. No Hydraulics = Death. Which is the pretty much the same result as last time in the 320 Sim.

Oh come on guys! Get real. As has been posted here you need hydraulics for mechanical backup. Do you seriously believe otherwise? If so, why do not all aircraft that weigh 330/340, 777, 747 weights, have such a system? Maybe it's because you couldn't physically put enough force into the control to move it.

Ahhh...to all of you!!. .The truth will only be known to you all when the co-pilot speaks out! Seems like the whole truth is not out yet and it probably will not be made public...to much at stake.. .Regards

alapt. .If you could see 70 km east through the rain, you would see my face looking like this: <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> . . . .What you are indicating would explain to me the reaction of old friends who sit very close to something but tell me nothing about Air Transat. .incident. But somehow, rumours will spread one day. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: Captain104 ]</p>

Ok Zeke and Captain 104, fair enough. I wasn't trying to create a major trans-oceanic debate etc. I even prefer vacationing in the old world.

One day, after I'm really fed up with the very hot (summertime) cockpits in our older planes (and ancient, very lousy APUs), with the constant sweating/dehydration in the turqoise "office", I might try the Airbus 320/319, when a lot more senior on it. It certainly has an attractive cockpit with better visibility. But for me, frequent long legs are a drag.

For those arguing about the Airbus needing hydraulics for mechanical backup - yes it does, but even a boeing needs its hydraulics, and if cables are broken how much backup is there for that?. . Also for those interested I tried the A330 "Transatlantic glide approach" in the sim last time, one thing that you might like to note is, having lost the engines because of lack of fuel you do not have the APU either, this then means you have lost ALL FLAP SELECTION bar flap1!. .I tried this from 15,000' /45nmls from LGW and made it with no problem (had to S turn to lose height). I aimed for 5nmls/1500' clean at green dot, then lowered the gear, landing was fast and I burst the tyres, but I was stopped and on the runway - if it was for real I would have been pretty happy with that!

Tan, Yup, I guess that at first look it seems odd that no hyds = very bad news, but if you consider the design philosophy of the hyd system, things look a little bit brighter. The ptu,rat,ylo elec pump,blu elec pump and 2 edps make for plenty redundancy - forgive me for any omissions, I'm not looking at the fcom! Interesting debate, nevertheless! And speaking of the bright side, there was no X-wind at lgw last night!!. .Cheers all,. .mcdhu <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Jeez, I can't believe this!!. People who don't know how the flight controls work, on the very airplanes that they are flying. I wonder if this lack of knowledge extends to the other systems as well?. . .Scary.

I can tell you one thing. The pilots are not off the hook just yet. My hat is off to them for putting that plane on the ground, it takes a huge amount of skill and Airmanship to do so, however it could have been avoided if the pilots would have done the cross-check of their fuel with the operational flight plan, specially on a long flight. Obviously there are some diferences between the flight plan fuel and the actual fuel, because there's always a lot of factors involved but you can get a close ideia of what your fuel should be. I fly for an airline (A320/1) and the fuel system although a bit diferent from the A330, it operates on the same concept and it is true that there is no warning of fuel leak on the ECAM, you might get fuel imbalance intitially followed by low fuel ecam warning. But the pilots are to blame for not cross-checking the Burn-off. I know the Airbus has it's glitches but if two lazy ass pilots are seating there, any airplane would have come down. And as for putting the Flight engineer back on. Well, that is just some ex-FE out of a job right now, thinking he would have save the day...yeah right...

Dear Hugo,. .------------------------------------------------. .And as for putting the Flight engineer back on. Well, that is just some ex-FE out of a job right now, thinking he would have save the day...yeah right. .------------------------------------------------. .It seems you have not had the experience of flying with a professional flight engineer before, also have the impression that this could not have happened to you. Well my friend, I think you pipi into the wind.