|
Originally Posted by 80-87
(Post 9583832)
15nm northeast of Zurich (Switzerland) when the crew reported smoke on the flight deck and requested to divert to Zurich
Originally Posted by slowjet
(Post 9584065)
airfieled surrounded by some serious bits of earth (called the Swiss Alps)
Oh man, they must have moved the city during the night while I was asleep, and they didn't even bother to tell me, the swines. Why am I always the last to hear? :sad: |
1 Attachment(s)
Attachment 1321
A map of the area around Zurich. Click to enlarge. Some charts are here for general reference; Disclaimer: given their date, consider them unsuitable for current flight ops, but of some use as a point of general reference for flying in that area. (@WeeJeem, I am still chuckling over your post. :) ) |
Reading threads such as this makes the non aircraft driving public scratch their heads. Every time we board a flight, it is with the assumption that the blokes up front know exactly what they are doing. After all, they have done it all before, probably many times, right?
Then we see "discussions" such as this where we see Pilot A says in this set of circumstances, do this Pilot B responds with: No. In these circumstances the correct set of actions is this, that or the other. And so it goes. How about a PA call from the cockpit along the lines of "We can't agree how to handle this so does anyone in the back fancy a go?" Incidentally, the aircraft involved, according to the Qatar Source reported a "smoke warning alert". After returning to Doha the following day, it was soon back in service, flying in short order to Riyadh, Shanghai, Cairo and is currently in Melbourne. Doesn't sound much like an aircraft that has had a fire of some sort (no smoke without....) |
Slo -- according to the YouTube audio, dumping had concluded by the time the additional track miles were requested. The need for the additional miles was stated as time to prepare the cabin -- not excessive altitude or additional dumping.
|
Then we see "discussions" such as this where we see Pilot A says in this set of circumstances, do this Pilot B responds with: No. In these circumstances the correct set of actions is this, that or the other. |
Kelvin wrt to the aircraft returning to service.
Hold Smoke detectors have signalled a warning on several occasions because of the gas given off from fruit or vegetables...no fire risk but that is unknown to the crew. SOP dictates firing the extinguishing bottles which in my day would render the detection system unreliable. The only safe way is to land asap or even ditch but we had a procedure where the flight engineer would go down the back and monitor the floor temp above the hold with his hand. I was at a presentation where the skipper had similar with a 747 over the South Atlantic...his first emergency airfield refused him landing clearance and he ended up diverting to a military base whose visibility and cross wind were way outside of limits. He evacuated in near gale conditions using the slides with the normal pax injuries to discover that it was "only" a problem of ripening fruit. Whilst we practice in the simulator it's not the same conditions as in real life especially as it might be in the middle of the night and you've had the squirts for two days. Saying that we lost a captain on the sim with a heart attack. |
Assuming the worst, and work your way down the scale from there. It does sound sensible, and it's what I would expect as well.
Nice job. |
Originally Posted by 80-87
(Post 9583832)
Aviation Hearld reports:
A Qatar Airways Boeing 777-300, registration A7-BAO performing flight QR-778 (dep Nov 18th) from Miami,FL (USA) to Doha (Qatar), was enroute at FL350 about 15nm northeast of Zurich (Switzerland) when the crew reported smoke on the flight deck and requested to divert to Zurich with CATIII ILS available for runway 16. ATC reported that only CAT I was available right at that point, CAT II was being activated. About 10 minutes later ATC reported that CAT III was now available for runway 16. The crew requested to dump fuel, but subsequently indicated they were not dumping and preparing for an overweight landing as they had problems with the fuel dump system, then the crew indicated they were now dumping fuel. The aircraft established on the localizer runway 16 still dumping fuel, reported they needed more track miles to descend, were vectored off the localizer again, finished dumping and rejoined the localizer. Tower queried "Confirm gear down and locked", response "gear down and locked, thank you", the aircraft landed safely about 24 minutes after leaving FL350, the crew indicated they would stop on the runway and requested emergency services to check whether there was any smoke visible. Emergency services reported no smoke. The crew reported everything was now normal again, the crew cancelled Mayday and decided to vacate the runway and taxi to the apron. A replacement Boeing 777-300 registration A7-BAG was dispatched from Doha to Zurich, resumed flight QR-778 about 10:20 hours after landing of A7-BAO in Zurich, and is estimated to reached Doha with a total delay of 10 hours.
Originally Posted by slowjet
(Post 9584065)
Good job ? Smoke (if unidentified) LASAP..yes, overweight. If identified.deal with it, Dump fuel, no lets not, no lets, no lets not...........good grief. Then dumping during approach ? WTF ?????? Mayday issued (because it was later cancelled) and choice of airfield questionable. Might be nearest but was the emergency so bad that you would choose it ? Cat 1, no problem but asking for cat 11 or cat 11, airfieled surrounded by some serious bits of earth (called the Swiss Alps) and an approach not easy in CAVOK !
Good job............seriously ?? But, don't know all the facts. Of those presented on a Rumour & news network,.........put on the Kettle & get the bickies ready CP. This is gonna be good ! Seems to me like they declared a mayday because they had smoke in the cockpit which would explain why Zurich was chosen. Why is either questionable? Why is it questionable to dump fuel for a few minutes while still descending toward the airport if it will cause no delay? CAT II or III would give autoland protection. The only questionable thing I see here is your post. By the way, there is a mistake on the words posted on the video a 1:02. It says "we need to dump to reduce weight for final" but if you listen to it, "actually says "we need to dump fuel, can we do it on the way to final". Seems perfectly reasonable. |
blind pew: Understood. I have heard of that before and I have no queries/qualms re the crew's actions. Although I think the rapid return to service tends to show the Qatar Source report of a smoke indication was perhaps more accurate than the AV Herald version of events. Having listened to some (where available) of the radio traffic, I never heard anything about smoke in the cockpit. Thanks anyway for your explanation, much appreciated.
My main point though was the argey bargey that goes on here between people who seem to be claiming to be experts, with one contributor being hammered for his opinion, despite his declaring his expertise/experience in these things. |
Originally Posted by KelvinD
(Post 9589095)
blind pew: Understood. I have heard of that before and I have no queries/qualms re the crew's actions. Although I think the rapid return to service tends to show the Qatar Source report of a smoke indication was perhaps more accurate than the AV Herald version of events. Having listened to some (where available) of the radio traffic, I never heard anything about smoke in the cockpit. Thanks anyway for your explanation, much appreciated.
My main point though was the argey bargey that goes on here between people who seem to be claiming to be experts, with one contributor being hammered for his opinion, despite his declaring his expertise/experience in these things. I never heard anything about smoke in the cockpit. https://youtu.be/YjA3ILh8lyE |
Every time we board a flight, it is with the assumption that the blokes up front know exactly what they are doing. |
Nicely put Framer.
Kelvin I've worked for three legacy carriers and in some way each thought they had invented flying which mirrored my mates in charter when yet another merger took place and the new training department changed things. We all live in a different perceived reality; it takes a brave and intelligent person to step back, re-evaluate and say I got that wrong. The most extreme example was the big boss of a fleet who endangered the aircraft for the umpteenth time..it took a "posse" of first officers to get rid of him whilst the training department did nothing, ironically a friend of mine's daughter did a small service for him recently and was given a flyer with a picture of him in his uniform and a self gratificating title "Mr ********". More than a decade since he was stopped flying passengers and still thinks he is god's gift whilst in reality he is lucky that he didn't crash. |
was enroute at FL350 about 15nm northeast of Zurich (Switzerland) when the crew reported smoke on the flight deck and requested to divert to Zurich with CATIII ILS available for runway 16.
the aircraft landed safely about 24 minutes after leaving FL350, Not any criticism intended, just a discussion point. It is one that has been debated before, but now that this topic is current, why not again. Just asking opinions & options. It centres around "land at nearest suitable". Much will also depend on familiarity. I, for one, would choose a familiar airfield over an unknown one, if there was an equal choice. FL350 overhead and 24 minutes to land. That suggests lots of vectors to descend within the area. MUC & FRA are both about 320km in flat-ish terrain, but perhaps moving further away as the crew decide what is best. GVA & MXP offer the same surrounding terrain as Zurich & are closer than FRA/MUC. So I suppose Zurich is the closest, just. I wonder what guys prefer; a long straight glide DCT TO, or a radar vectored 'round the houses' descent where the descent planning is handed over to ATC more than in the SA focus of the crew. The difference being 5-10 mins, perhaps, and familiarity a factor, but then, as per Swiss Air in Halifax, 5 mins can The Difference. I remember this was discussed a while ago with a London based carrier who had a problem over N.France then continued to planned London rather than a death defying spiral into an unplanned Paris. |
At last, the real pilots coming in and making sensible comments rather than the hand-bag brigade just awaiting a victim. I notice RAT5 sets the scene by making clear no criticism intended. Shame we have to do that in order to avoid the petty, insulting onslaught from the bored trouble makers. I think SLOWJET was taken by the initial media report and wondered if it was accurate. If it was, he was rightly entitled to comment on what RAT5 alludes to. Opens up huge debate and might creep the thread too far for the Mods.
Gosh, though ; the "Land as soon as possible" debate spilled over at all my CRM training into lively debate in the crewroom. The "Land at the nearest ", oh, wait for it, suitable alternate has spilled over into the bar and led to the odd bar brawl ! SLOWJET's "think, think, think " was well intentioned. Like RAT5, how bad can it be to warrant dropping in from 35000ft and only 17 nearby ? Must have been very bad indeed . The London carrier incident might not have been the same as one reported of a B737 with engine failure over destination, CDG, and elected to turn round and return to LGW on one engine. "Nearest", "suitable" etc. Cripes. Debate raged for years after that one. |
Land at the nearest suitable airport....meanwhile dumping fuel....I understand this is done because otherwise the jumbo is too heavy to land safely? so unable to stop in the space available? Seems to me that the longest runway would be the best choice, but assume there really is a fire behind the smoke... In the heat of the moment, if you need to land NOW, what are the possible consequences of landing overweight? do most major airports now provide the soft surface stopping zone that seems to work pretty well?
Would that item of information be available to the crew under stress? |
According the "Swiss Transportation Safety Investigation Board STSB" notification, this incident began at a distance of 90 nm from Zurich LSZH, 50nm north-west of Basel, which corresponds roughly to Luxeuil LFSX. As the preliminary description of the problem is given: "electrical fume and light smoke formation in the cockpit".
See also: http://www.sust.admin.ch/pdfs/AV-berichte/QTR778_e.pdf Quite a different info compared to the original report on AVHerald... |
The London carrier incident might not have been the same as one reported of a B737 with engine failure over destination, CDG, and elected to turn round and return to LGW on one engine. "Nearest", "suitable" etc. Cripes. Debate raged for years after that one. On another course I listened (while my jaw slowly dropped little by little) to a TRE saying he could justify flying to a U.K. destination in a twin after losing an engine around Bordeaux. (No wx issues) I said there was no way that I could endorse his decision making in that case. I fully expected the person taking the course and the other pilots to back me up, only to be disappointed once more. I had a strong enough personality to maintain my position, but it was also interesting. I have learned to assume nothing where people are concerned. Pilots tend to love these type of discussions on Pprune, most of it is ego talking of course. Of course I include myself. It is very interesting up to a point when you realise how (relatively) pointless they are, nothing much comes from them, just individual feelings of various varieties. I am being a touch cynical I suppose. I have gratefully taken snippets from Tech Log over the years from wise old aviators. Lessons can be learned from all types, but it has to be built on experience. True progress gradually creeps in a positive direction over time. I am reminded of Max Plank's famous qoute which Could be summed up as: 'Science progresses funeral by funeral'. :) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:18. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.