Flying on Empty
 

Flying on Empty
Did anyone see that documentary lats night on the Air Transat A340 incident where the thing ran out of fuel and had to glide to the Lajers. Two things struck me about the programme:

1) The PPRuNE thread a while back describing the incident seemed completely at odds with this report.

2) As horrible as it sounds, I think the programme completely failed to identify the key critical cause of the emergency. The fact that the crew decided upon a course of action without actually having the faintest idea what the problem was. It seems to me that "Do nothing" should be a considered course of action; especially when you are completely confused by the situation - blaming the computer is inexcusible! With my armchair ATP hat on, why didn't they shutdown engine 2 when the low oil temp and high pressure readings first appeared.

It is easy to critisise in hind sight but I think problem solving is often a philosophy as well as a skill.

Also, did they, as the documentary implied but not saying otherwise, forget to that the cross feed was on after engine 2 failed?

Any other thoughts?

Agreed but failed to answer some key questions and passed over the remedial actions very quickly at the end of the programme. To be fair I thought it did not paint a fair picture of the crew as many viewers will be left with an impression that apart from the FO the Captain sat back frowning but doing very little until it was too late.

That said very creditable recovery. Does anyone know how long it took to recover the 330 and am I correct that Air Transat are only as shadow of there former selves.

Did they actually show the whole program? I caught about 20 minutes of it, then it went to ad break, and by the time I'd returned with my coffee, some other prog was on about daft celebrities - bizarre. Perhaps I was kidnapped by aliens etc. etc. ...Seems logical!

1st, take with a reasonably large pinch of salt anything on the program last night. Leave to the final report, as and when that appears.

However, to answer your question, why on earth would you shut down an engine for HIGH Oil Pressure, and LOW Oil Temperature? As the program said, these are the opposite indications to those you might expect from an engine in distress (you would expect a problem to give you Low Press / High Temp).

You tend, in general, not to shut down an engine for one indication. Whilst a Fire Warning might be an exception, modern systems are "double loops" and so a Fire Warning is not a "single indication". Whilst the LOW temp / HIGH pressure might add up as a double warning, they do not give an indication that an IFSD is required.

I fly the more baby Airbii, and the only references I can find to these sort of warnings is the "OIL LO Temp". The only recommended action is "Delay Takeoff" - useful mid-Atlantic! It may be they got this caution, and deduced the "Hi OIL Press" from the gauge? Or maybe the 330 / Trent does have such an ECAM?

In summary to this, and presuming the program got this right, I would never imagine an IFSD being considered - although the crew might want to hunt around for other "problems". Suspect these were caused by (very) cold fuel spraying onto something in the Oil circuit, or a sensor etc.

I think that is the moral of the incident... Without blaming anyone, everyone now treats the X-Feed with more respect than before. To Open it to Balance Fuel, should IMHO, only be done with a stopwatch, some calculations, Fuel Page up, and papers down! If in any doubt, close X-Feed until you can understand WIHIH...

Hi Nigel,

Thanks for your response. My main concern was a remedial action for a problem not in the least understood. However, I take your point about the accuracy of the program, It is probably safe to assume it was dumbed down for the hoy-paloy.

I look forward to the report.

Cheers,
HWD.

330 glider report
 

To: High Wing Drifter

The report is complete but it is not being released until Air Transat can get it changed to reflect the true assessment of blame which will be shared between Airbus, Rolls Royce, Air Transat and possibly the certification authorities.

According to my source the pilots performed exactly in accordance with the operating manual. They were presented with various visual inputs from the instruments and Capt. Pische believing that the design of the A-330 was such that there could not be a mechanical problem (leak) that the presentation of the instruments (computer) was faulty. Although the FO ran several paper calculations the Captain did not believe the findings of the FO. Also the indications of high oil pressure and low temperature were never covered in the training syllabus nor was it covered in the operating manual. This just added to the confusion factor. When the Captain eventually suspected a leak he had the cabin attendant look out the window. Since it was at night she could not tell if there was a leak. Another point to consider was the software used to detect a fuel imbalance was set such that an excessive amount be lost prior to the indication being presented to the pilot. Much of the fuel was lost prior to the pilot being made aware of the imbalance.

As a result Airbus changed the imbalance detection software and they issued an AD covering the actions to be taken by the pilot in the event of a leak or an imbalance. This AD was broken down into various sections, which related to a specific leak and the location of the leak. It also indicated if the pilot should open the cross feed. This is a good approach but there is a problem. In order to determine if there is a leak and the location of the leak the crew must be able to see it. This might work during daylight hours but if it happened during the night it will lead to the pilot making the wrong move to counter the leak which could exacerbate the problem. To my knowledge this AD which was written over a year ago has not been officially released.

One additional note: In the Airbus AD they blamed the pilots of the stricken A-330. This might be done in an NTSB assessment but never in an AD.

:E :E

Get out the book! Oops!
 

The outfit I work for is very much oriented towards the idea of one or two very clever guys writing procedures for the rest of us to just read and do... no brainwork required.

So, guess what! We caught a problem that just wasn't in the book, a systems failure with the air turbine starter control valve, albeit a relatively benign one, that no one had thought of. That old ability to 'think outside the box' came in very useful. But it's exactly this ability that is being increasingly suppressed by operating sophisticated, highly automated aircraft designed by geniuses who have thought of every possibility. Except for the unthought of one....

After this incident I am sure they have changed the checklists and SOPs but not that underlying philosophy of discouraging much independent thought and healthy skepticism when faced with an anomaly. I don't want us to go all the way back to grizzled, open-cockpit heroes in baggy flight suits with a pint bottle of cheap booze in the hip pocket but I feel sometimes that the boffins are in charge.

I missed this program but the ones I have seen usually present us as either dullards or else cowboys. Then comes lots of out-of-focus stuff with the controls vibrating and a close-up of a smoking hole. The man in the street sure can learn a lot about flying from watching this sort of drivel.

LZ...

I look forward to this report... primarily for 2 things:
1. We are going down this route, and a report highlighting the weaknesses of this approach can only be welcome!

2. The FL pattern used. Look forward to seeing the exact pattern planned, and used by the crew - the result was excellent!

Incidentally, since you seem in the know, apart from the wheel / tyre damage, was there any other damage to the aricraft? I seem to recall it landed heavily enough to crease the airframe (?), but not sure if there was any truth in that? Was it a quick repair and back into service?

NoD

On a slight aside, an impressive bit of flying once the second engine quit. Partly reminiscent of the Sioux City incident in that they knew that there would only be one go at getting it down.

Within this specific frame of discourse, I would file the word "impressive" in the understatement cabinet.

My knowledge is limited
 

To: NigelOnDraft

I'm sorry to say that I can't answer your question. I understand that after the initial repairs were made they flew it out for further inspections and making the necessary repairs if required.


Note: There is another thread on this same subject on Rumors and News

:E :E

Well - sounds like the damage was probably not too bad if they flew it out... If it was a write off, they'd have pushed it off the cliff / cut it up....

Thanks for the info. What was the reg - a search in that would reveal, I presume, if it is flying again?

NoD

You know the problem of running out of fuel occurs in the General Aviation world far more often than people want to admit. I probably work two or three aircraft a year that have fuel emergencies or that run out of fuel, and I can never understand why pilots allow themselves to get into a fuel problem.

Mike
NATCA FWA

Mike,

There is a very recent thread on the subject in Private Flying. There is a particularly interesting reference to the Cessna that ditched off of the Scily Isles.