Gocat
 

As an aside:

I miss hearing the "stripes" call-sign on 118.7 (RPLC). "Go-cat" seems tacky. Any idea why it changed?

From memory Tiger Airways Phillipines used that as the callsign, they merged with Cebu and no longer exist. Tiger in Singapore did use STRIPE until around 06'

If you hear a SMART CAT, Tiger Airways Taiwan!

Tiger in Oz also use 'Go cat". I wonder if Tiger have secured a sponsorship deal with the manufacturer of a certain pet food? :}

For f**k sake, shut up before full investigation completed!

With short turn round times, the flight crew could have completed the walk around checks and then proceeded woth very busy preflight in the cabin and cockpit.

Maintenance could have done a lot of routine oil/fluid top up plus other checks which require opening the cowls after the pilots' walk around check.

The maintenace must check before pushback!

FELLOW PILOTS ARE A PILOT's worst enemy!!!!!!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

We are arguing about whose job it is to check.

Shouldn't we be saying to Airbus that you know there is a problem - redesign the cowling before somebody gets hurt?

Yes, let's not speculate.

Well OK, then - you speculate, we won't. :ugh:

Cause-effect-consequence

Clearly something is out of kilter here with way too many causes (humans)

Seems like the effort needs to go into the effect-consequence area

Has the 'fix" not been employed? or is it a case that it doesn't address the effect or consequence?

By consequence I mean the safety of flight by level

My gut feeling is that they need to significantly reduce the human involvement or at least the effect which is the release of the door in flight (make it pop open on start-up etc.)

CFM:
http://i67.tinypic.com/3460spv.jpg

IAE:
http://i64.tinypic.com/66kron.jpg

Penitpete
 

Although I have made next to no posts prior to this incident I do happen to know a lot about this problem.
One thing is that a lot of people don't really know what they are on about when making posts.
It really is not rocket science, they are just engine cowles, even though they could be a better design, they just need to be checked for correct closure and latching.
People just need to do what they are paid for.

Pentepete and FlightDetent......Well written and pictured

So much gnashing of teeth and whining around here:ok:

And yet on 40-odd occasions, that has failed to happen.

What makes you think that preventing a recurrence is going to be that easy?

Penitpete
 

Well ok if you are suggesting that we need to make it so fool proof that a pilot or engineer dosn't need to do their job properly.
A/c fitted with V2500 engines could have a special certification block on the tech log sector page for the pilot or engineer to sign stating that the engine cowls have been inspected for correct closure and latching prior to despatch, just like the icing check.

I feel you are both correct. The problem is not really with the latches, they do lock once closed. If left open, the fact is perfectly obvious provided you look at them. BTW, there never was need to get wet, that idea only came up in the post "BA situation" face-saving excercise.

YES, People just need to do what they are paid for. NO, preventing a reocurrence is not going to be that easy.

The only difference with CFMs is that when left unlocked it is hard not to notice.

I don't know why Singapore ATC is always so pedantic in asking the exact reason for the return to WSSS. It's not the first time I've heard this level of interrogation by Singapore ATC for aircraft diverting to WSSS. Is it for security reasons? They don't appear to be welcoming to diverting aircraft.
As for Tiger's callsign, they changed to 'Go Cat' a few years ago because their previous callsign sounded too much like another carrier's. And now since Air Asia changed to 'Red Cap', they're back to the same problem.

What struck me when listening to the audio tape was how poorly the Singapore controllers behaved during this incident. I recall hearing at least twice, the controller reading back verbatim what the PNF had just said to him and then added "Confirm?". As for not understanding the word "cowling", I would have expected better English comprehension than that.

I got the feeling that the controllers were completely out of their depth, when handling a non-normal situation. As for asking how many VIPs on board, I expect that was a requirement of their SOP, but I would have been tempted to answer "183!"

It seems as if the Mayday declaration did not trigger the undivided attention of ATC - they still seemed to handle the flight as if it was a part of the normal flow.

The PNF could have perhaps influenced the situation by using the Mayday suffix, at least on initial contact on a new frequency.

Unless I missed it, ATC never did confirm that the fire trucks were standing by, even though the PNF specifically asked.

Finally, I have to say, I thought the PNF (local or European?) was amazingly patient with ATC throughout the whole incident.

PS I flew into Changi on Sunday on Tiger and I was tempted to ask the Captain, as we deplaned, if both cowlings were still attached, but I thought he might not appreciate my humour! ;)

CFM56 vs V2500
 

Something maybe deeper to ponder guys?
Part of the response in post 33 from DaveReidUK stated
Quote:Referring to pics on the net shows that when standing facing the front of the engine the CFM fan rotates CW but the V2500 rotates CCW.
I'm not an engine man, over to the experts.

YALC
 

YALC = Yet Another Lost Cowling

According to AVH, a Luxair DH8D-400 on LG4605 arrived at London City with a bit missing.

Time to reconsider the Ford Solution ?

DH8s seem to do this regularly, like A320s.

Is Inattentional Blindness part of the problem ?

Spot the Gorilla:
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/i...5leAU7wDq_Ab9e

As far as I can see from the report, the AAIB don't draw any conclusions from the statistic, but I'd be surprised if it has anything to do with the direction of engine rotation.

I suspect it's a consequence of where you have to stand/crouch/kneel (delete as appropriate) in relation to the engine/wing/fuselage in order to check the latches depending on whether they are on the outboard or inboard cowl.

But obviously I don't have any proof.

Where I work the closing and latching of A320 cowlings are now a Critical Inspection task. Another pair of eyes may or may now help alleviate the problem - time will tell I guess

I cannot believe that these brainwashed morons are in charge at Changi Airport. Double confirm? VIP? Spelling of cowling? Then again this is Singapore where people are taught not to think but obey.:ugh:

Do you have to open the cowl to check IDG oil on V2500?
On the CFM, oil/IDG oil checks can be done without opening the cowlings.

Some A320's I work do not have the small panel to quick view the IDG oil level and opening the fan cowls is the only way. That in itself creates amongst some the hesitation in opening the cowlings to see the sight glass . . .

And those cowlings would be opened and closed more often than the CFM cowlings (or other V2500s with an access panel).

For heaven's sake, just check thoroughly that the aircraft is fit to fly before flying it. (I am not specifically commenting on this particular incident, but on the general issue about checking engine cowl latches).

If turnarounds or maintenance procedures mean that cowls need to be opened AFTER the walkaround has been completed, then write ASRs and get the procedures changed.

The walkaround is the final check that the aircraft is secure, safe and ready for flight. Engineers should not open a cowl after the walkaround has been completed and the tech log has been signed. If they do, they should inform the flight deck, write the reason in the tech log and sign it again, and it should be confirmed without doubt that the cowl has been relatched and checked.

We are in the business of being SAFE. No amount of commercial pressure or short cuts should be allowed or tolerated if they impinge on safety.

@Calvin Hops, It was hopefully clear from my post that I was making a general point about checking cowlings, since I made no reference to the incident referred to on this thread, or any others.:ok:

Question for the engineers?
 

On a routine maintenance schedule, what are the reasons to open the cowling and the frequency of doing so? Also, is it any different between CFM and IAE, some posters above seem to indicate it is the case.

regards, FD.

The last couple of years, there has been increased awareness of this issue, as the regulator leant on airlines to re-educate pilots and engineers.

And has that effort has made any difference at all?

Sound advice, which if followed would no doubt have prevented some of those 40-odd cowl loss events.

But worth bearing in mind that the above circumstances (opening the cowls after the walkaround) aren't what happened in, for example, the BA incident. Nor was that a simple case of engineers "forgetting" that they had not latched the cowls.

The for heavens sake method clearly doesn't work when it comes to V2500 engine cowls. So, we need to look at other ways to solve this problem.
The for heavens sake method should also be applied throughtout aviation, but for some odd reason it doesn't work all the time. Even if it is in the OM-A.
That's why we have (E)GPWS, TCAS, stall warnings, overspeed warnings, and a number of other defensive measures installed.
We are just not perfect enough.

If you open the cowls, you put an entry in the Tech log.
"ENG #1 cowls opened for .........whatever"

When you shut them you close the entry.
"ENG #1 cowls closed, secured and latched satisfactory"

Simple.
It gives visibility and responsibility to all concerned.
It's in the AMM, company procedures - no excuse. :ugh:

All this does is finger the blame

You can't eliminate human error, all you can do is mitigate the effects

No it doesn't it's called taking responsibility. :rolleyes:

If I replace a Rudder Travel Limiter Actuator, (as it's a popular subject) I sign for it in the appropriate paperwork, I take the responsibility. If I open the engine cowls to replace the IDG I take responsibility. I follow the procedures and making the appropriate tech log entries. Opening and closing the cowls is part of that procedure. If I don't follow the AMM and the company policy then I'm breaking the law - simple.

If there's an entry in the tech log that refers to the cowls being opened when reviewing the tech log the pilots can easily see what work has been done and have a good look on his walk around.

Unfortunately basic airmanship has been forgotten about in an effort to drive down costs. Fewer staff, less qualified and less experienced.

Filler Dent

Have you read the report on Airbus A319-131, G-EUOE, 24 May 2013?

Viewable here...


You forgot

"Carry out verification check of ENG #1 cowl latches"

"Verification check carried out of ENG #1 cowl latches, all secure."

It's in the AMM, company procedures - no excuse.

We're going round and round in ever-decreasing circles here.

Yes, clearly if everyone did everything by the book, we wouldn't have a problem with departing cowls. But obviously they don't always, and as a consequence we do.

Simply saying "well, they should do", or "I do, why can't everyone else?" isn't particularly helpful unless it's accompanied by practical suggestions as to how that can be made to happen.

Maybe you're on to something, lock up a few engineers pour encourager les autres, but somehow I don't see that working either.

I agree with Calvin Hops.

Flight crew walk arounds are cursory checks; final absolute checks must be a maintenance function.

Eg: If for any reason a departure is delayed by last minute loading and the loading truck unknowingly punctures or gouges the fuselage, the flight crew cannot be aware of that! Only the final THOROUGH INSPECTION by the maintenance crew can ensure absolutely nothing unacceptable.

The captain signs acceptance well before doors finally closed.

Unless we want to flight and maintenance logs to be signed after a walk around inspection by captain just before start...it would be an interesting new procedure. Then someone would want captains to inspect every cargo loading, every DG or NOTOC items. Damn it, check fueling panel latches as well! Check doors properly closed by accessing CCTV pictures through iPads as well........👿

Excellent idea. :ok:

Now, how are you going to re-employ all those maintenance crew who lost their jobs when flight crew took over that function (for a nominal fee:suspect:)?

On some/many turnarounds these days, there are no engineers, so the pilots must perform a proper walkaround check. Once airborne, we can't pull over to get out and check what's causing the funny noise.

Meanwhile the loose cowl might have just severed the fuel line or damaged the FADEC, so now you are down to one engine, or possibly none. Pretty stupid really, since a two second check of each cowling would have prevented all that from happening :ugh: