Air Tindi

[digits_]

I started a thread called A Top of Climb Check a couple of years ago suggesting a tailored flow for your type. Several posters took issue with it resulting in the thread being deleted. This flight is a good example of how one can save the day.

On the contrary, this accident is a good example as to why extra checks are useless if you don't have the discipline to follow the ones you have. The company already had such a procedure in place to check the fuel at the beginning of cruise. But if you don't have the checklist discipline to perform the checks when necessary, then piling on extra checks won't help. Does that surprise anyone?

So more checks is the answer? Please...

You might notice that I mentioned how a fuel leak could be found doing the check that I recommend. And guess what, I did discover a fuel leak one time(on a Citabria). You are welcome to stick to the belief that a quick check of items at top of climb is piling things on and won't help but it would have helped here. The reality, is that there are quite a few items that can be selected that are not on the regular checklist such as ice protection, radio selection, lights, fuel configuration, weather radar management, MEL items, etc. Most of these items have the potential to lead to some sort of an incident.

You're missing the point. The check would be useful, they already should have done it according to their SOPs. The check you are suggesting *was* already mandatory, yet they didn't do it. Piling on another check would not have helped this situation. It demonstrates that just throwing more mandatory checks to a crew does not work when they need it most.

If you already need to check an item *3* times, which this crew didn't do, do you honestly believe requiring the same check a 4th time would have made any difference?

[godsrcrazy]

We could all carry on about Checklists, SOPs, MELs and bad culture within the company. What ever happened to good airmanship. Obviously, these guys sat up there telling jokes, complaining about the company, or just staring out the window. They certainly weren’t scanning the gauges on a regular basis. It’s not like an airplane has never vented out fuel. I don’t know about the rest of you but a check ALL gauges on a regular basis and I don’t need a checklist to tell me to do it. This is just bad airmanship. These guys may want to consider a new job that doesn’t include concentration.

[UnionDrive]

We could all carry on about Checklists, SOPs, MELs and bad culture within the company. What ever happened to good airmanship. Obviously, these guys sat up there telling jokes, complaining about the company, or just staring out the window. They certainly weren’t scanning the gauges on a regular basis. It’s not like an airplane has never vented out fuel. I don’t know about the rest of you but a check ALL gauges on a regular basis and I don’t need a checklist to tell me to do it. This is just bad airmanship. These guys may want to consider a new job that doesn’t include concentration.

Lots of assumptions.

[pelmet]

On the contrary, this accident is a good example as to why extra checks are useless if you don't have the discipline to follow the ones you have. The company already had such a procedure in place to check the fuel at the beginning of cruise. But if you don't have the checklist discipline to perform the checks when necessary, then piling on extra checks won't help. Does that surprise anyone?

So more checks is the answer? Please...

You might notice that I mentioned how a fuel leak could be found doing the check that I recommend. And guess what, I did discover a fuel leak one time(on a Citabria). You are welcome to stick to the belief that a quick check of items at top of climb is piling things on and won't help but it would have helped here. The reality, is that there are quite a few items that can be selected that are not on the regular checklist such as ice protection, radio selection, lights, fuel configuration, weather radar management, MEL items, etc. Most of these items have the potential to lead to some sort of an incident.

You're missing the point. The check would be useful, they already should have done it according to their SOPs. The check you are suggesting *was* already mandatory, yet they didn't do it. Piling on another check would not have helped this situation. It demonstrates that just throwing more mandatory checks to a crew does not work when they need it most.

If you already need to check an item *3* times, which this crew didn't do, do you honestly believe requiring the same check a 4th time would have made any difference?

My suggestion applies to all flights, regardless of whether it was a mandatory procedure for this crew. Many pilots do not have it as a requirement.

This accident just drives home the potential consequences.

Therefore, if your SOP’s already require this kind of a check, follow the SOP. If not, create your own procedure for top of climb.

Trust me…. my advice is better.

[piperdriver]

We could all carry on about Checklists, SOPs, MELs and bad culture within the company. What ever happened to good airmanship. Obviously, these guys sat up there telling jokes, complaining about the company, or just staring out the window. They certainly weren’t scanning the gauges on a regular basis. It’s not like an airplane has never vented out fuel. I don’t know about the rest of you but a check ALL gauges on a regular basis and I don’t need a checklist to tell me to do it. This is just bad airmanship. These guys may want to consider a new job that doesn’t include concentration.

Well said and I could not agree more. What ever happened to good airmanship and common sense I might add. Blaming this on management or company culture is absolutely ridiculous. Who the F*** hops in an airplane fires up and takes off without even the thinking of fuel quantity, fuel burn, VFR reserves, etc. I believe they only became aware of their predicament once the fuel light came on. Yep time for a new career x2.

[UnionDrive]

You might notice that I mentioned how a fuel leak could be found doing the check that I recommend. And guess what, I did discover a fuel leak one time(on a Citabria). You are welcome to stick to the belief that a quick check of items at top of climb is piling things on and won't help but it would have helped here. The reality, is that there are quite a few items that can be selected that are not on the regular checklist such as ice protection, radio selection, lights, fuel configuration, weather radar management, MEL items, etc. Most of these items have the potential to lead to some sort of an incident.

You're missing the point. The check would be useful, they already should have done it according to their SOPs. The check you are suggesting *was* already mandatory, yet they didn't do it. Piling on another check would not have helped this situation. It demonstrates that just throwing more mandatory checks to a crew does not work when they need it most.

If you already need to check an item *3* times, which this crew didn't do, do you honestly believe requiring the same check a 4th time would have made any difference?

My suggestion applies to all flights, regardless of whether it was a mandatory procedure for this crew. Many pilots do not have it as a requirement.

This accident just drives home the potential consequences.

Therefore, if your SOP’s already require this kind of a check, follow the SOP. If not, create your own procedure for top of climb.

Trust me…. my advice is better.

Create your own procedure? That must go over well at your employer.

[pelmet]

You're missing the point. The check would be useful, they already should have done it according to their SOPs. The check you are suggesting *was* already mandatory, yet they didn't do it. Piling on another check would not have helped this situation. It demonstrates that just throwing more mandatory checks to a crew does not work when they need it most.

If you already need to check an item *3* times, which this crew didn't do, do you honestly believe requiring the same check a 4th time would have made any difference?

My suggestion applies to all flights, regardless of whether it was a mandatory procedure for this crew. Many pilots do not have it as a requirement.

This accident just drives home the potential consequences.

Therefore, if your SOP’s already require this kind of a check, follow the SOP. If not, create your own procedure for top of climb.

Trust me…. my advice is better.

Create your own procedure? That must go over well at your employer.

Maybe they will fire me for simply doing a scan of all the panels at the top of climb, which is all it is.

Looks like the foolish comments that got that Top of Climb thread removed a couple of year back haven't changed. I can just see it now. Our union drive guy doesn't do anything outside of what the written down procedures tell him to do and then calls the union when he runs out of gas after not noticing a leak. Was too busy with union talk to the other pilot.

Reading through the report triggered a memory of mine from long ago. The low fuel level lights. I had forgotten about that but now remember that a mere 75 usable pounds for the front tank and 110 usable pounds in the rear tank. Why the difference.

[UnionDrive]

My suggestion applies to all flights, regardless of whether it was a mandatory procedure for this crew. Many pilots do not have it as a requirement.

This accident just drives home the potential consequences.

Therefore, if your SOP’s already require this kind of a check, follow the SOP. If not, create your own procedure for top of climb.

Trust me…. my advice is better.

Create your own procedure? That must go over well at your employer.

Maybe they will fire me for simply doing a scan of all the panels at the top of climb, which is all it is.

Looks like the foolish comments that got that Top of Climb thread removed a couple of year back haven't changed. I can just see it now. Our union drive guy doesn't do anything outside of what the written down procedures tell him to do and then calls the union when he runs out of gas after not noticing a leak. Was too busy with union talk to the other pilot.

Reading through the report triggered a memory of mine from long ago. The low fuel level lights. I had forgotten about that but now remember that a mere 75 usable pounds for the front tank and 110 usable pounds in the rear tank. Why the difference.

My comment was in reference to your practice of inventing your own procedures. Not simply scanning the instruments and gauges(this is done almost subconsciously). Once again you jump to conclusions.

[pelmet]

Create your own procedure? That must go over well at your employer.

Maybe they will fire me for simply doing a scan of all the panels at the top of climb, which is all it is.

Looks like the foolish comments that got that Top of Climb thread removed a couple of year back haven't changed. I can just see it now. Our union drive guy doesn't do anything outside of what the written down procedures tell him to do and then calls the union when he runs out of gas after not noticing a leak. Was too busy with union talk to the other pilot.

Reading through the report triggered a memory of mine from long ago. The low fuel level lights. I had forgotten about that but now remember that a mere 75 usable pounds for the front tank and 110 usable pounds in the rear tank. Why the difference.

My comment was in reference to your practice of inventing your own procedures. Not simply scanning the instruments and gauges(this is done almost subconsciously). Once again you jump to conclusions.

Please give the specifics of what procedure I invented that is such a problem.

My recommendation is to do what you have suggested is ok…..a simple scan. Which includes all the panels.

Am I inventing procedures you don’t like because I have extended the scan to to the switches etc on other panels.

Anyways folks, ignore the statements from those with bad advice and do a Top of Climb Check(which is a scan of the panels in your cockpit) to ensure things are positioned properly/instruments reading normally.

[UnionDrive]

Maybe they will fire me for simply doing a scan of all the panels at the top of climb, which is all it is.

Looks like the foolish comments that got that Top of Climb thread removed a couple of year back haven't changed. I can just see it now. Our union drive guy doesn't do anything outside of what the written down procedures tell him to do and then calls the union when he runs out of gas after not noticing a leak. Was too busy with union talk to the other pilot.

Reading through the report triggered a memory of mine from long ago. The low fuel level lights. I had forgotten about that but now remember that a mere 75 usable pounds for the front tank and 110 usable pounds in the rear tank. Why the difference.

My comment was in reference to your practice of inventing your own procedures. Not simply scanning the instruments and gauges(this is done almost subconsciously). Once again you jump to conclusions.

Please give the specifics of what procedure I invented that is such a problem.

My recommendation is to do what you have suggested is ok…..a simple scan. Which includes all the panels.

Am I inventing procedures you don’t like because I have extended the scan to to the switches etc on other panels.

Anyways folks, ignore the statements from those with bad advice and do a Top of Climb Check(which is a scan of the panels in your cockpit) to ensure things are positioned properly/instruments reading normally.

Doing a scan is absolutely fine, as I said it’s done almost subconsciously. Making your own procedure however, is not. We should all ignore your attempt to resurrect an old thread. I apologize for my contribution to pelmet’s bs.

Did these pilots lose their jobs? I’m not saying they should or shouldn’t, just asking if they did.

[pelmet]

My comment was in reference to your practice of inventing your own procedures. Not simply scanning the instruments and gauges(this is done almost subconsciously). Once again you jump to conclusions.

Please give the specifics of what procedure I invented that is such a problem.

My recommendation is to do what you have suggested is ok…..a simple scan. Which includes all the panels.

Am I inventing procedures you don’t like because I have extended the scan to to the switches etc on other panels.

Anyways folks, ignore the statements from those with bad advice and do a Top of Climb Check(which is a scan of the panels in your cockpit) to ensure things are positioned properly/instruments reading normally.

Doing a scan is absolutely fine, as I said it’s done almost subconsciously. Making your own procedure however, is not. We should all ignore your attempt to resurrect an old thread. I apologize for my contribution to pelmet’s bs.

I think the bs is the reality that I have suggested taking a look at all the panels in the cockpit(what could be called a check or scan) and you both criticize it as making up one’s own procedures yet support it by saying a scan is good.

Do a Top of Climb check(ie look around to make sure things are indicating/positioned as desired)….but make sure to call it a scan to keep the union folk happy. And never admit that you have decided to do your ‘absolutely fine’ scan(which I have been calling a check) at a regular particular time in flight as the occasional oddball could accuse you of exhibiting poor airmanship.

[T-bag]

Pelmet. Stop talking

[‘Bob’]

Dear lord, Pelmet.

We already have a Top of Climb Check.

They are called CRUISE CHECKS.

Usually something like

CRUISE POWER..... SET
FUEL...... SUFFICIENT
GAUGES........CHECKED

[rookiepilot]

Airmanship > Checklists.

[pelmet]

Dear lord, Pelmet.

We already have a Top of Climb Check.

They are called CRUISE CHECKS.

Usually something like

CRUISE POWER..... SET
FUEL...... SUFFICIENT
GAUGES........CHECKED

Hmmmm…….when you say ‘We’, does that include every other operator both private and commercial? Of course not.

My recommendation is for the significant percentage of operators that do not have cruise checks. In addition, I believe that your ‘cruise checks’ are insufficient. It says to check gauges. I suggest a scan of gauges plus switches/levers/etc in a methodical manner. As one poster said ……it is good airmanship(although he changed it after reading my subsequent post).

Airmanship

Airmanship > Checklists.
Last edited by rookiepilot on Mon Nov 28, 2022 4:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Not sure what the experts would recommend for those who don't have a cruise checklist(which includes some airliners I have flown). Can't make your own checklist. Don't make up a procedure to scan your cockpit switches and panels.....maybe just figure things out when the poop hits the fan and use the emergency checklist and call its use as Airmanship>checklist.

An example of how a scan at the appropriate time might prevent an issue. Every once in a while, we hear about an airliner that gets intercepted in Europe and forced to land. Why? ATC can't reach them on the radio. They try 121.5 as a back-up and still can't reach them. Why? Because not only did they accidentally mismanage the primary frequency, they did not have 121.5 selected as the secondary(or had the volume down or something like that). Then they send up the fighters, and if you are lucky, contact is made and you get away with only a media story. If you are unlucky, you end up landing somewhere.

Therefore, after returning to the cockpit from crew rest to replace a pilot, I always did a scan. One of the first things I would check is the weather radar set properly(started that after finding it was not one time) and that not only was 121.5 on com 2 but press to test it to ensure the volume was up. Every once in a while, guard frequency is not set properly. That is the set up for getting intercepted if there is some sort of a screw-up on the primary radio and ATC cannot contact you. And the company would fire the pilots if they got intercepted. As they say....it is the little things that can get you.


P.S. Six day later and I am reading through the report. it says: "Finding as to risk

If flight crews do not maintain a scan of the flight instrument panel and alerting systems, there is a risk that they will not identify an abnormal aircraft state that escalates to an unsafe situation."

[pelmet]

Just reading through the report today. During the diversion to YJP, they started a descent from 7000' and were at 2800' when they lost all engine power. It is better to stay high in such a situation unless the winds are a significant factor(10 knots at cruise altitude that day). That way, you can maximize gliding distance(sort of like the Air Transat A330). They might have barely made it if they kept their altitude. Plus you have more altitude and time and choice for selecting a place to land.

Its too bad about tthe fuel selection. They actually had enough fuel to make the airport but accidentally made a wrong wing tank selection that pumped main tank fuel back up into the wing(after it had been emptied) which was then never used. Shows the importance of deliberate selections for something like this, perhaps with a double check, seeing as the switch is in an unusual location and the situation is critical.

[Eric Janson]

Its too bad about tthe fuel selection. They actually had enough fuel to make the airport but accidentally made a wrong wing tank selection that pumped main tank fuel back up into the wing(after it had been emptied) which was then never used. Shows the importance of deliberate selections for something like this, perhaps with a double check, seeing as the switch is in an unusual location and the situation is critical.

You'd be surprised at the lack of technical knowledge people can have (or maybe not). Especially in abnormal conditions.

I recently asked a colleague what he would do in the event of an Engine exceeding the maximum temperature limit (EGT) on take-off?

(This is an exceedance - NOT a failure).

He stated he would reject the take-off!

Made for an interesting de-brief.

[pelmet]

Its too bad about tthe fuel selection. They actually had enough fuel to make the airport but accidentally made a wrong wing tank selection that pumped main tank fuel back up into the wing(after it had been emptied) which was then never used. Shows the importance of deliberate selections for something like this, perhaps with a double check, seeing as the switch is in an unusual location and the situation is critical.

You'd be surprised at the lack of technical knowledge people can have (or maybe not). Especially in abnormal conditions.

I recently asked a colleague what he would do in the event of an Engine exceeding the maximum temperature limit (EGT) on take-off?

(This is an exceedance - NOT a failure).

He stated he would reject the take-off!

Made for an interesting de-brief.

I think the report was putting forth that the Twin Otter made an unintentional wrong fuel selection and that the system was not configured as was intended.

I assume the EGT exceedence was at high speed. I think I would consider a low speed RTO, certainly if it was a significant exceedence. I did have one on a Boeing airliner once right after liftoff.......the whole circle for the EGT indication became red which is always a surprise to see in real life. It was instinctive is to just retard the thrust a bit and it worked. Still worriesome as one has a red box outlining the digital temp for the rest of the flight. We had full thrust due to an MEL and it was a hot day. Turned out that it was actually just a few degrees overtemp and all that was required was a quick borescope. Maintenance action required depends on the amount and duration of the exceedence I was told.

[Eric Janson]

I assume the EGT exceedence was at high speed. I think I would consider a low speed RTO, certainly if it was a significant exceedence. I did have one on a Boeing airliner once right after liftoff.......the whole circle for the EGT indication became red which is always a surprise to see in real life. It was instinctive is to just retard the thrust a bit and it worked. Still worriesome as one has a red box outlining the digital temp for the rest of the flight. We had full thrust due to an MEL and it was a hot day. Turned out that it was actually just a few degrees overtemp and all that was required was a quick borescope. Maintenance action required depends on the amount and duration of the exceedence I was told.

Below 80 knots there is a Master Caution and an RTO should be performed as per airbus SOP.

Above 80 the Master Caution is inhibited. If an overtemp occurs after 80knots take-off should be continued. The flashing red EGT display and red box around the engine instruments can be a bit unnerving if you've never seen it before.

We have this on the aircraft briefing papers - but only for the aircraft involved in operations where this may occur.

Reducing power on the engine with an overtemp on the ground invalidates your take-off performance.

I've made this part of my technical discussion during Line Checks.

I brief this before take-off in hot conditions where we are using high thrust settings and I explain exactly what I am going to do and where I'm going to do it so all Pilots are on the same page (there were 4 of us in the cockpit at times during COVID - usually all Captains).

The take-away from this is - know your aircraft.

Understand what happens in abnormal situations when primary systems may be in a different configuration. If you're not sure - ask!

Know your primary systems.

- Fuel
- Hydraulic
- Electrical

and if applicable

- Air conditioning/Pressurisation.

[digits_]

I assume the EGT exceedence was at high speed. I think I would consider a low speed RTO, certainly if it was a significant exceedence. I did have one on a Boeing airliner once right after liftoff.......the whole circle for the EGT indication became red which is always a surprise to see in real life. It was instinctive is to just retard the thrust a bit and it worked. Still worriesome as one has a red box outlining the digital temp for the rest of the flight. We had full thrust due to an MEL and it was a hot day. Turned out that it was actually just a few degrees overtemp and all that was required was a quick borescope. Maintenance action required depends on the amount and duration of the exceedence I was told.

Below 80 knots there is a Master Caution and an RTO should be performed as per airbus SOP.

Above 80 the Master Caution is inhibited. If an overtemp occurs after 80knots take-off should be continued. The flashing red EGT display and red box around the engine instruments can be a bit unnerving if you've never seen it before.

We have this on the aircraft briefing papers - but only for the aircraft involved in operations where this may occur.

Reducing power on the engine with an overtemp on the ground invalidates your take-off performance.

I've made this part of my technical discussion during Line Checks.

I brief this before take-off in hot conditions where we are using high thrust settings and I explain exactly what I am going to do and where I'm going to do it so all Pilots are on the same page (there were 4 of us in the cockpit at times during COVID - usually all Captains).

The take-away from this is - know your aircraft.

Understand what happens in abnormal situations when primary systems may be in a different configuration. If you're not sure - ask!

Know your primary systems.

- Fuel
- Hydraulic
- Electrical

and if applicable

- Air conditioning/Pressurisation.

I am not sure what you are trying to describe here. You are briefing a takeoff in which you will knowingly exceed an EGT limitation? Overtemping it is ok but reducing power is not because you don't want to invalidate the performance calculation?