Bmi Airbus lands with park brake on (Report)
 

You mean " Oops I did it again " ;)

Luckly nobody was injured . He was not the first one and will for sure not be the last one ;)


Regards
JBB

It would be nice to know if someone had looked at the Human Factors elements in this one, of which there seem to be several from the report linked above, and taken the appropriate action to prevent a re-occurrence.

Like this:

Can't say I remember any reference to the gear in the landing checks...unless it's in the Landing Memo - No Blue bit.

Click here to go to the report on the AAIB web site.

I've seen pictures - can't remember where - of an American nuclear power station were some handles had beer taps on the from different brewers, so as to more rapidly and accurately identify them.

A simple non-software fix is at hand !

Even Concorde had a system that wouldn't allow the brakes to become effective until the wheels had spun up.... Is there any feasible reason you would WANT to land with the parking brake on?

If not (and I can't see that there is but I'm not yet a pilot) surely Airbus could have implemented a similar warning/advisory message on the ECAM or some kind of system that prevents the parking brake being applied while airborne?

Whoops.....I slipped up asking about the HF angle had been looked at, based on the BBC report, before reading the AAIB report.

The operator even called in a psychologist to help them with this aspect. So it was a silly question.

But I am doubtful about what then happened. The report picks up a number of issues that could be described as contributory, but the eventual single recommendation only concerns changing SOPs to include a look at the lower right quadrant of the ECAM screen in the pre-landing checks.

With respect to AAIB, this is only going to capture the error if, or when it's made again, and does nothing to prevent it happening in the first place.

In the engineering world, a Boeing MEDA investigation, now in common use, systematically analyses ALL contributory factors, and then derives from that analysis recommendations to prevent a re-occurrence of the error, not just to improve its capture. Most events are found to be the culmination of a number of contributory factors leading to errors and, perhaps, violations.

The AAIB report, and /or the psychologist's report, quite rightly mentions the lever design and location, cockpit workload, and the commander's focus on the weather, as contributory factors. But it was not a systematic analysis, and the recommendation ignored most of the contributory factors it did find. I'll bet there were some more, too.

It's not the AAIB's job only to make recommendations with little financial impact. For example; was the design issue irrelevant? Not according to the report; "The ability to grasp the parking brake handle in a similar manner to the flap selector......may.. have prevented the commander from obtaining initial tactile feedback...". It's what we old folk call a "Murphy" and they need to be fixed when found, not left to entrap the next poor sod (This was No 5, wasn't it?).

The sentence may well be a realistic take on our approach to safety today, but it makes me weep. Simply rewriting the pre-landing check to improve the probability of capturing the error is totally inadequate.

Is there an ECAM alert when the Parking Brake is engaged prior to touchdown?

Of course not - all these instances are down to one basic issue - bad design by Airbus.

If you have to apply the footbrakes to engage the Parking brake then it is highly unlikely that you will do that in flight.

Airbus's switch might make the F/C workload easier but has obvious implications for safety.

Embraer had a incident like this on the 170 acouple of years ago. They have introduced an EICAS message to alert crews if it happens again.

Couldn't happen on a Boeing............ (oops, I think I've just dug myself a hole.....)

Many moons ago on the Vanguard the procedure was that the handling pilot on take off used to apply the footbrakes for a couple of seconds to stop the wheels from spinning before calling for the undercarriage to be raised.
The manufacturer thought that the forces on retraction might, over time, cause damage to the undercarriage. If however an engine failed on take off then the pilot called for undercarriage up straight away, to remove the drag as quickly as possible.
When base training a simulated failure might be done a dozen times in a detail so the procedure was for the trainee to call for the undercarriage keeping his feet on the floor, the training captain discretely pulled and released the handbrake to stop the wheels before the gear was raised.
I think you're all probably ahead of me here, the rubber marks were clearly visible ten years later.

Latest aircraft have an ECAM warning if park brake is set in flight. Can't remember if it is being retrofitted with new software updates. I seem to remember from my distant 737 days that it had locked wheel protection, would that have helped if the park brake was set or did it just stop you bursting a tyre if your size 12s were on the brake pedals?

If it's the one I am thinking of then I am sure he was a great help;)

Saw a VC10 do it on 10L at Heathrow many moons ago. VC10s weren't intended to be STOL!!

I had a quick search as I thought it had been covered before...have a look at

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=parking+brake

and

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=parking+brake

with colour pictures!!

some of these posts particularly those knocking airbus a bit off the mark. Quite a few aircraft from various manufacturers have done exactly the same. Also most airliners including airbus have some form of anti-skid (like ABS) and have done since Dunlop's Maxaret system was marketed in the 1960's. But it won't help in landing with the park brake on.

That's gonna be pricey!!!

Similar things have happened on Boeings. I have seen on more than one occassion hands go to the flap lever instead of the gear lever when asking for gear up. Different levers but with the same action and associated with each others use could lead to mistaken operation.

Another angle...
 

Was listening to David Gunson's "What goes up..." yesterday. Ironic, isn't it - he reminds us in his typically hilarious way of the stench of burning rubber, the bangs from the tyres and the mountain of paperwork to follow. Hilarious the way he tells it; the reality is... just the same, only without the hilarity. Glad everyone safe.
JC

i do recall I asked last year can you set the parking brake in flight on an airbus and the usual detractors just took the piss and laughed me off the stage.....why would a fool do such a thing was the smut written....well now I know you can set it.....I feel sorry for the skipper but setting the parking brake on approach is no excuse.

Hey - we all make mistakes. My mum drove her automatic BMW 8 miles into Kingston with the parking brake on. Only noticed when the smoke pouring out the back was pointed out to her by a passer-by. She wondered why it had felt underpowered.:ugh:

Same happend with an LTU A321 in Paphos last year in June.
Parking Brake was set and aircraft landed. All main gear tires blew, runway was blocked for hours...
Not much has been published on that. Also no report could be sighted on the german "BFU" site, that investigates accidents normaly.

BRGDS

Rampi

On the "old" FWC (pre-H2F3), there is an ECAM message generated. On the LBA incident, 24.01.2007, the AAIB pointed out that there was no SOP to check the ECAM before touchdown. AAIB says there is now.

Release H2F3 includes master caution light, aural warning, and specific checklist-type message on the ECAM.

The link to the report was published by The Nr Fairy on this thread on 13.09 at 16:45.

PBL

Why not incorporate this into the Air/Ground logic and make it impossible to set the park brake in the air? I've been trying to think of an occasion that might require the park brake to be set when airborne...no, can't think of any!

A lot of types already have a similar arrangement for, say, reverse thrust...why not for park brake????

Yep, it DOES happen...
 

Well, I always do a scan...a 'visual flow', so to speak...

On short final, I always scan the gear down indications, autobrake, Flaps/Slats, etc. and ZERO pressure on the brake pressure indicator. (Don't necessarily care about the actual position of the parking brake handle...

Just a personal thing...


PantLoad

Park brake on, reverse thrust in the air (see other thread) no wonder they stop so quick !

Wow
 

What is strange about that story? If the Captain was the PF why was he "setting the flaps"? There are two pilots on the airplane with PF and PNF duties for a reason. Maybe he wanted to set the Autobrakes and instead went for the parking brakes. Putting bodies in the seats attitude will keep biting management's behind.

No, the Capt was PNF.... read the report !

Skymiles
:ugh::ugh:

During my first engine out SIM session on the Airbus I attempted to adjust the rudder trim with the untraditionally located park brake handle. Stuff happens when there are ergonomic issues involved during high workloads.

Yes I know it has to be located there so both pilots can access it.

"Maybe he wanted to set the Autobrakes and instead went for the parking brakes."

I'm sorry......are you serious????

Quote The NR Fairy: I've seen pictures - can't remember where - of an American nuclear power station were some handles had beer taps on the from different brewers, so as to more rapidly and accurately identify them.

A simple non-software fix is at hand !

-------------

I am not sure if I should admire their creativity - or be afraid as hell, they are using beer taps in order to be able to handle a nuclear power plant.... What is worse, that they are using beer taps or that they had to use something like beer taps to distinguish handles...

Why not add a bit of 'colour' to the Deck,

Parking Brake - White Sticker.
Landing Gear - Green Sticker.
Flaps Lever - Blue Sticker.
Speedbrake - YellowSticker.

This would make it easier to identify what is what just by colour markings.

It would be cheaper than blowing the Tyres!:ugh:

Regards.:ok:

Thank God it did not happen to a third world carrier...the insinuations about pilot incompetence would have been thunderous. As far as I remember airbus parking brake design can lead to some unforseen results especially when one try to use it instinctively.

grimmrad:

I seem to recall that the picture showed a sea of beige, unbroken except for innumerable identical gauges, handles and knobs.

It was the operator's response to a situation which should have been designed out at birth, IMO, but I'm no psychologist nor an ergonomist.

If the humans are the weakest link, then Airbus and other manufacturers need to design in accordance with that. It seems to me that changing the shape of and (I don't recall from the report if it's the case) the motion required to set the parking brake is much more Murphy-proof.

Unless you've got a strict requirement to test everyone who might need to operate the aircraft for colour-blindness (including the maintenance people), it's not a good idea to colour-code controls. If you're in low-light conditions it's also not helpful. Tactile differences are far better.

llondel, I agree with you 100%. We rarely look that closely when we reach for a knob/lever. Tactile differences are much more likely to save our bacon. Take a look at a Boeing MSP and check out the knobs.

Why not have what the 737 had- a big red light that indicates when the park brake is on? Mind you the 737 has other issues to do with the ergonomics of the cockpit, but the park brake is not one of them.

non-pilot speaking
Tactile differences are far better.

On any of the occasions that I have visited a flight deck (operational or static) some of the main controls were tactile in their design. I recall my father showing me how the undercart (as they called it in his day) lever was shaped like a wheel so that you knew which lever you had in your hand.

If designers have started to use standard switches again then it looks like we are going to have to learn the lessons all over again.

Paxboy, to be fair to Airbus they do not use "standard controls" the flap lever and the parking brake lever are nothing alike, and operate totally differently, the brake lever is lifted out of its detent and turned in a rotary direction to set the brake, i can undestand confusing the speed brake lever with the slat/ flap lever perhaps, but not the brake and flap/slat lever.