Hmm I’m really surprised in this day and age of communications that some tend to rush to judgment when an aviation accident occurs.
Unless you were involved in the accident you don’t know what happened.
Let the accident investigators do their job, publish a report and then hopefully we’ll know the facts. Until that time this needless speculation is harmful both to the pilot’s reputation and aviation..
Plane Ditches Near Wawa
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
eep...2 Green
- Rank 3
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 12:49 am
hz2p you sound like you have the real world experience that some others profess to have. You describe many circumstances that could have happened in this case of a reported ditching.
Shameful Sulako...I have never run out of fuel.
And you haven't been able to come up with a good reason for anyone doing so.
-
sprucemonkey
- Rank 8
- Posts: 773
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:31 pm
Remember, TC's reading. (or getting someone else to read it for them)-
flyinthebug
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1689
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:36 am
- Location: CYPA
-
Doctor MCDU
- Rank 2
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 4:05 pm
- Location: Pointed End, Port Side.
Fuel for thought
Some Fuel for thought.
Extra gas. Personally, I like to have 5% more fuel than my release calls for. However, this can come with a penalty depending upon the trip. If, on a 5 hour trip I want my 5%, I would be looking at carrying an additional 1500 lbs of fuel. This may not seem like a lot, but when that 5 hours is touching the limits of my aircraft capabilities (considering alternates, legal reserves, etc), there may not be the physical space for that extra fuel, let alone the availalbe wieght. At all other times, when you have the capacity for addtionally fuel, should you carry it, you will burn more fuel as a result (aircraft is now heavier).
Next, the fact is that "Shit happens" Case in point. 1986. Air Canada 767 runs out of fuel as a result of multiple failures including systems, processes, training, and the governments silly idea to change to a quasi standardized system of measure.
Was the pilot to blame in this one? My opinion is no.
However, an Air Transat Airbus (And I know this airplane well) runs out of gas. Is this pilot to be blamed? Absolutely! He pumped good fuel into a UNKNOWN leak. He could have safely allowed one engine to starve it self, and continued safely on the remaining engine. Hell, they are even ETOPS certified for that purpose. But nooooooo, he does exactly what Airbus instructs pilots NOT to do, and he becomes a decorated hero.
The point is, not many peaple plan to run out of fuel. Let's find out why it happened before we either chastize this guy, or give him hero status. Either way, what ever status he gets will probably be undeserved (see above)
Extra gas. Personally, I like to have 5% more fuel than my release calls for. However, this can come with a penalty depending upon the trip. If, on a 5 hour trip I want my 5%, I would be looking at carrying an additional 1500 lbs of fuel. This may not seem like a lot, but when that 5 hours is touching the limits of my aircraft capabilities (considering alternates, legal reserves, etc), there may not be the physical space for that extra fuel, let alone the availalbe wieght. At all other times, when you have the capacity for addtionally fuel, should you carry it, you will burn more fuel as a result (aircraft is now heavier).
Next, the fact is that "Shit happens" Case in point. 1986. Air Canada 767 runs out of fuel as a result of multiple failures including systems, processes, training, and the governments silly idea to change to a quasi standardized system of measure.
Was the pilot to blame in this one? My opinion is no.
However, an Air Transat Airbus (And I know this airplane well) runs out of gas. Is this pilot to be blamed? Absolutely! He pumped good fuel into a UNKNOWN leak. He could have safely allowed one engine to starve it self, and continued safely on the remaining engine. Hell, they are even ETOPS certified for that purpose. But nooooooo, he does exactly what Airbus instructs pilots NOT to do, and he becomes a decorated hero.
The point is, not many peaple plan to run out of fuel. Let's find out why it happened before we either chastize this guy, or give him hero status. Either way, what ever status he gets will probably be undeserved (see above)
It's not a tray table, it's a Flight Attendant Jump-seat! Mind the joy stick.
Just to add a little more background to the A330 mishap the following was borrowed from another site and is self explanatory..
"As a ground theory instructor, the first thing I thought of when I heard that was "It sounds like the fuel leak is cooling the oil" If it is a full flow system, then raising the viscosity of the oil will raise the oil pressure.
Maybe the 2 things, apparent low fuel level and low oil temperature should have started a thought process, but of course it will be dependent on systems knowledge, not flying skills.
No one in the program came up with the 'obvious' (to me) relationship.
Hopefully, you professional pilots here will have your memories jogged if something similar happens to you.
Automation dependency is one of the reasons Human Factors training is so important nowadays.
As was said in the program by one of the passengers "Do I think the pilot was a hero?, no. Do I think he was a bloody good pilot?, yes." ......and I would agree, if only on the unpowered landing skills."
"As a ground theory instructor, the first thing I thought of when I heard that was "It sounds like the fuel leak is cooling the oil" If it is a full flow system, then raising the viscosity of the oil will raise the oil pressure.
Maybe the 2 things, apparent low fuel level and low oil temperature should have started a thought process, but of course it will be dependent on systems knowledge, not flying skills.
No one in the program came up with the 'obvious' (to me) relationship.
Hopefully, you professional pilots here will have your memories jogged if something similar happens to you.
Automation dependency is one of the reasons Human Factors training is so important nowadays.
As was said in the program by one of the passengers "Do I think the pilot was a hero?, no. Do I think he was a bloody good pilot?, yes." ......and I would agree, if only on the unpowered landing skills."
-
Doctor MCDU
- Rank 2
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 4:05 pm
- Location: Pointed End, Port Side.
What!
It was this simple. The A330 was loosing fuel, and the source of the leak was unknown.
Here's what Airbus says..."When the source of the leak can not be verified...DO NOT CROSSFEED FUEL"
They did, and almost created a disaster, from what should have been nothing more than an inconvenience.
Oh, I'm not a Theory Instruction. But, I am an Airbus Commander who makes a point of reviewing Operational Bulletins, etc.
Here's what Airbus says..."When the source of the leak can not be verified...DO NOT CROSSFEED FUEL"
They did, and almost created a disaster, from what should have been nothing more than an inconvenience.
Oh, I'm not a Theory Instruction. But, I am an Airbus Commander who makes a point of reviewing Operational Bulletins, etc.
It's not a tray table, it's a Flight Attendant Jump-seat! Mind the joy stick.
-
Mitch Cronin
- Rank 8
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:15 am
- Location: Right beside my dog again...
Dr. MCDU.... That presupposes he/they knew there was a leak... or that they even considered there may be a leak.
I believe they were dealing with what they simply understood to be a fuel imbalance. I can't for the life of me understand how that supposition could have carried on 'til the fuel was all gone, but then, I wasn't there... and I'm not able to fathom either their mindset, or their knowledge at the time.
My point is, the mile in their moccasins hasn't been done by any of us... And there's nothing in the cause that can diminish the result. The ship hit terra firma with all souls surviving just fine. A result that - as no one argues with - could well have gone very differently. That deserves the recognition. We all know what he did wrong, but we cannot possibly know all the nuances of how/why.... we certainly can appreciate what he did right afterward.
I believe they were dealing with what they simply understood to be a fuel imbalance. I can't for the life of me understand how that supposition could have carried on 'til the fuel was all gone, but then, I wasn't there... and I'm not able to fathom either their mindset, or their knowledge at the time.
My point is, the mile in their moccasins hasn't been done by any of us... And there's nothing in the cause that can diminish the result. The ship hit terra firma with all souls surviving just fine. A result that - as no one argues with - could well have gone very differently. That deserves the recognition. We all know what he did wrong, but we cannot possibly know all the nuances of how/why.... we certainly can appreciate what he did right afterward.
-
Doctor MCDU
- Rank 2
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 4:05 pm
- Location: Pointed End, Port Side.
Correction
From the Airbus FCOM (Flight Crew Operation Manual) "...when a fuel inbalance exists, and the cause can not be determined, DO NOT ATTEMPT TO CROSSFEED FUEL TANKS..."
The point is, that with aircraft like Aibus, Boeing and MD, most problems can be avoided by simply following the manufactures recommendations.
The point is, that with aircraft like Aibus, Boeing and MD, most problems can be avoided by simply following the manufactures recommendations.
It's not a tray table, it's a Flight Attendant Jump-seat! Mind the joy stick.
-
Mitch Cronin
- Rank 8
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:15 am
- Location: Right beside my dog again...
-
hydroplane
- Rank 0
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:30 pm
-
permateacher
- Rank 2
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:26 am
Not to be negitive
Ya,
Not to be negitive or anything, but the banter on here reminds me of the scene in zoolander when the two male models were agruing about hairgel right before they decided to go for some oragnge-mocha-frappacinos. He ran out of gas, that sucks, glad everyone's OK. He'll know to tank some more gas around next time.
Fly safe
Not to be negitive or anything, but the banter on here reminds me of the scene in zoolander when the two male models were agruing about hairgel right before they decided to go for some oragnge-mocha-frappacinos. He ran out of gas, that sucks, glad everyone's OK. He'll know to tank some more gas around next time.
Fly safe
Re: Not to be negitive
Dude, it didn't have anything to do with "tanking some more gas"..... although an orange-mocha-frappacino would go nicely about now.permateacher wrote:Ya,
Not to be negitive or anything, but the banter on here reminds me of the scene in zoolander when the two male models were agruing about hairgel right before they decided to go for some oragnge-mocha-frappacinos. He ran out of gas, that sucks, glad everyone's OK. He'll know to tank some more gas around next time.
Fly safe
hydroplane
Your impression is correct Airbus did issue a fix 24 hours after the event with no blame.
For those of you not familiar with such procedures this is a quick overview of what happens. Normally in the event of an incident, such an engine failure, or accident the aircraft and engine manufactures usually know about the occurrence in real time. This is usually closely followed by the airlines and regulatory authorities. If a fix is required it is usually done immediately with the manufacture claiming no blame. There’s obviously more to it then that but you get the idea.
There are no good guy’s bad guys in this scenario just get a fix on the problem before it the regulatory authorities shut you down.
This is just another reason that aviation costs big bucks…
Your impression is correct Airbus did issue a fix 24 hours after the event with no blame.
For those of you not familiar with such procedures this is a quick overview of what happens. Normally in the event of an incident, such an engine failure, or accident the aircraft and engine manufactures usually know about the occurrence in real time. This is usually closely followed by the airlines and regulatory authorities. If a fix is required it is usually done immediately with the manufacture claiming no blame. There’s obviously more to it then that but you get the idea.
There are no good guy’s bad guys in this scenario just get a fix on the problem before it the regulatory authorities shut you down.
This is just another reason that aviation costs big bucks…
