AC A340 Emergency in YVR

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:19 pm

Pratt.. good points...
Re: "I highly doubt that the crew was doing it to get the a/c on the ground ASAP, more than likely as previously stated, they did it in consultation with Ops and Mtc. "

If I was the guy in Mtc. ....talking to them... If the crew couldn't see what the trouble was... (most likely) ...even with the utmost of wireless, digital magical wizardry available, I highly suspect (though I'm not certain) the most I could hope to know ...is the flap drive motor positions, the actual flap positions, and whether or not a wing tip brake or two had been set off... I wouldn't know why, and wouldn't know what, if anything, is broken or soon to be... I'd be wishin' they was down. I'm not a fan of in-flight trouble-shooting of mechanical, monkey-motion failures - other than such as might be necessary to get a gear leg down and locked, or regain control of one axis or another if it's completely lost, I think when things are possibly broken, leaving them locked right where they are might be better than freeing them. (as a matter of interest, I think the ALaskan MD-80 stab runaway story has a lesson in just that question...)

My advice would (probably - depending on what more I might learn that I can't right now think of

) be to bring it down when you reckon you can safely do so.

The ball's back to you? What're you gonna do with that if you're flyin'?

Cheers,
Mitch

Pratt · Post by **Pratt** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:41 pm

Hi Mitch,

Thanks for the response, I have to agree with you that in this scenario it would be better to just land the a/c rather than fiddle with things and possibly make thing worse, like creating an flap assymetry(sp). But I stand by what I said that this type of an emergency is nowhere near the caliber of an inflight fire, in our scenario you would have the time to run the full checklist, consult with mtc, ops and your Mother if you wanted to. Decide whether to dump fuel or do an overweight landing after that consultation with the company.

There are many scenarios where you might do the the consultation and end up coming back to your mtc base rather than carrying on to a destination half way around the world where you don't have the same resources as the place where you just departed.

My point, especially to MRO, is that these emergencies( a flap ploblem) or abnormalities do not all require an immediate landing ASAP.

Getting back to your question, if it was me in that scenario, after running the appropriate checklists I would consult with mtc and ops, hopefully getting a mtc person as realistic on the other end as you are, then making my decision based upon all of the info that I had gathered.

If they wanted me to land overweight, and landing distance etc wasn't a consideration, and I felt it was safe to do so I would do as the company wished.

Cheers

Pratt

I forgot to add,

Don't get me started about gear that won't come down!! LOL

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:15 pm

Thanks Pratt... That all sounds pretty right to me.

I'm almost looking forward to getting back to work so I can find out what did happen. ....

Cheers,
M

A330 · Post by **A330** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:29 pm

Landing with a flap problem is normally a non-event and does not require an immediate landing. I've landing a 330 flap-less after the flaps jammed selecting flaps 1. Follow the checklist ( QRH ) and check landing distance etc..very fast on approach, like vref + 40, but not a problem with a long, dry runway. I'm sure the crew to HKG would have liased with company and discussed the possiblity of dumping fuel. It would likely have been lots of fuel, so being "enviromentally" friendly and complying with the landing distances, they elected to land overweight on a long dry runway. No big deal and I'm sure the company would appreciate not losing about 50 tons of fuel. For info, the 340 jettsions at about 1000/kg per min, so dumping 50-60 tons would take about an hour.

I agree with Pratt....their is no "fiddling with things" on these modern jets. You follow the prescribed checklist and do what the ECAM and QRH tells you. That's it, end of story. The comparison to an in-flight fire to a flap failure is absurd. There is no comparison....a fire is the worst case failure in any aircraft and throws everything else out the window.

These rare events such as flaps failures are really interesting and actually allow the crew time to discuss and run the checklists in a relatively calm and controlled manner.

Cheers

Anti-Ice · Post by **Anti-Ice** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:12 am

Just wanted to second that....
Flap failure is just about a non-event.

In flight fire is very serious.

Longtimer · Post by **Longtimer** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:53 pm

Anti-Ice wrote:Just wanted to second that....
Flap failure is just about a non-event.

In flight fire is very serious.

Perhaps but pushing onto HKG was def. not an option.

fogghorn · Post by **fogghorn** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:32 am

Mitch Cronin wrote:Why dump all that precious fuel when you can just come on back, set her down as purdy as you please, and have the boys do a simple overweight landing inspection... ?

YUP, they brought er in 400,000 lbs too heavy, not a problem for an AC driver, those boys can really drive a bus! Dumbasses probably had a popped breaker somewhere and they were too busy trying to figure out what the 69 efis screens were telling them to find it. Have ya every really thought about why they have a restricted landing wt on those things, after all, they got airborne didn't they? Like - whats the big deal other than pilot technique, if its hammered on, on too short a rwy, it could be a problem, but frankly, who could possibly give a rats ass? I dont.

Mornazinomoretuzzi · Post by **Mornazinomoretuzzi** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:13 pm

Actually, I know the one of the drivers in question and can tell you he is a very good pilot. I will let you continue to ponder your question as to why there is a maximum landing weight. This way when you do find your answer the fruits of your labor will taste that much sweeter. Oh yeah I almost forgot, what type of airplane do you fly? Probably a 747 or 767, perhaps a J-3. I think it best you leave these problems to the big boys, sit back, pop another top, flick on the tube, thinking to hard can be hazardous to ones health

. You never know, the boys that brought her down safe may just be the ones flicking a quarter in your can tomorrow...

Cheers

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:27 pm

How does one become "a very good pilot" when watching the auto-pilot fly 99% of the time....? You're paid to follow the proceedures,(not Bob Hoover it on...) which it sounds like they did, good job, no drama, everyone's safe and happy. That's what the public wants, and pays for.

STL

Good on AC for not dumping fuel either.

Longtimer · Post by **Longtimer** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 4:40 pm

sky's the limit wrote:How does one become "a very good pilot" when watching the auto-pilot fly 99% of the time....? You're paid to follow the proceedures,(not Bob Hoover it on...) which it sounds like they did, good job, no drama, everyone's safe and happy. That's what the public wants, and pays for.

STL

Good on AC for not dumping fuel either.

It is also what the wives / husbands of the crew want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 4:55 pm

J31 wrote: But if anyone has truly read one of the most exhaustive crash reports ever produced you would realize that was a night from hell. Even if they had pointed at YHZ and tried to land strait in RWY 6 they would have missed the airport entirely. Did they get into checklist more than we would now? Yes. Would they have made it if they had said “forget the checklist lets land” I do not think so and neither did the TSB.

Exactly. From the time the fire started, they were screwed. Their straight line estimate for YHZ was longer than they stayed in the air.

Buster · Post by **Buster** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:51 pm

A330 wrote: I agree with Pratt....their is no "fiddling with things" on these modern jets. You follow the prescribed checklist and do what the ECAM and QRH tells you. That's it, end of story.

I disagree on that one. If we all remember a 330 in the Azores with an unscheduled landing. What did they do? Well to answer my own question, they followed the ECAM and QRH. Big mistake!!! First of all we can't be robots and just follow something because it says so. Before you start pushing switchs, know why you are and why its up on the ECAM or you can find yourself in a heap of trouble. So for me, if its up on the ECAM and the QRH tells me what to do., it's not the end of the story, just the beginning.
We still have to have some common sence guys. Flying on these modern jets is not that brain dead...yet.

Cheers
Buster

... · Post by **...** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:40 am

...airbus

mantogasrsrwy · Post by **mantogasrsrwy** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:44 am

Sorry Buster but they DID NOT follow the QRH. My pre Azores QRH clearly states in the fuel imbalance checklist (as would be the case with every multi-engine aircraft in existence) "Caution Do not apply this procedure if a fuel leak is suspected. Refer to FUEL LEAK procedure." So if they had blindly followed the checklist (all of it) they might not have got into trouble. Seems to me trying to diagnose the problem and out think the airplane got them in trouble. I'm not saying to switch off the brain....but they missed a important line in the checklist.

HavaJava · Post by **HavaJava** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:33 am

Not trying to hijack the thread, but mantogasrsrwy got the azores incident exactly right!...well said!!!

A330 · Post by **A330** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:39 am

Naturally, there could be a one in a million exception, but the Azores, as correctly mentioned, is not a great example. They found themselves to be down a few tons of fuel, only losing more and carried out the imbalance checklist only to facilitate the loss. There were other issues at play which might have misled them, but the bottom line is that fuel just doesn't disappear, so the wrong checklist was applied. So to answer your own question again....yes, you should diagnose the problem and correctly choose the right course of action and understand the systems and I agree, we are not robots. Common sense has us following the Ecam and QRH, and read it carefully.

Au revoir

rotateandfly · Post by **rotateandfly** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:59 am

With the price of fuel these days I imagine that if it is possible to land overweight, then that would be prefferable to dumping the juice... especially with the profit margins so tight.

pilot decision making aside,

how much would a half tank of Jet-A cost?
how much does the brake inspection or a brakes replacement cost?

Lommer · Post by **Lommer** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:33 pm

From http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/a340/:

An A340-200 can hold 155,040 L at max capacity. Jet fuel is retailing for just over a dollar, but for simplicity's sake lets assume AC has a contract to buy for less than retail (I sure hope they do) and that they get it for $1/L (it's probably a little less). So an almost full load of fuel is worth ~$150,000 CAD.

Now brake + gear work, I have no idea....

EI-EIO · Post by **EI-EIO** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:07 am

Lommer

AC don't have 342s (if they had, they could make YVR-SYD non stop both ways). So the figure you need is 141,500 L