Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's it doing now? (classic version)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What's it doing now? (classic version)

    A lot of system failures. Not a lot of QRH. Fortunately the LTC knew how to fly and the swiss cheese didn't align.

    http://avherald.com/h?article=4d8da3b7&opt=0

  • #2
    PM has command of a 737-400 with just "2,525 hours total, 2,325 on type"?

    Comment


    • #3
      There are pilot jobs out there.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by flashcrash View Post
        PM has command of a 737-400 with just "2,525 hours total, 2,325 on type"?
        Yep, that means that he had just 200 hours when he started flying the 737. Oh, and he is not only a 737 captain but also a 737 Line Training Captain (a captain that trains captains).

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #5
          And then a practically identical whatsitdoingnow on an A330:

          https://avherald.com/h?article=4c7e8f96&opt=0

          Comment


          • #6
            My first experience with electrical problems was in a DC-9 cargo aircraft. Snowy night in Oklahoma. As you step in the door there's a little door on the floor you open to access the cargo door controls. Well, snow got in there and melted and dripped down into the E&E (electronics) compartment causing us some issues that went away on level off and reappeared during the descent.

            Another one with the snow was a crew of mine in the 747 that picked up some cargo in Anchorage on the way to Asia. Later in the flight the snow melted and dripped, again down into the E&E compartment causing some issues.

            Comment


            • #7
              sorry, thread title is all wrong. both crews did what they were supposed to do (fly the plane) and landed safely. yes, the cargo crew missed some checklists, but i dont see anywhere in either article where the crew pondered "what's it doing now?"

              rather, they both said, "oh shit! this plane is broke, let's land the sucker!"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                sorry, thread title is all wrong. both crews did what they were supposed to do (fly the plane) and landed safely. yes, the cargo crew missed some checklists, but i dont see anywhere in either article where the crew pondered "what's it doing now?"

                rather, they both said,
                "oh shit! this plane is broke"
                click-click, clack-clack "let's land the sucker!"
                Fixed,
                They corrected a too high approach and stabilized it while still above 1000 ft, then flew a go-around due to the cell crossing the runway, then then a second approach, all by hand.

                Instead of asking what is it doing now, they said, ok, it is doing this, took control over the situation, and then, after landing probably wondered why was it doing that.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                  Fixed,
                  They corrected a too high approach and stabilized it while still above 1000 ft, then flew a go-around due to the cell crossing the runway, then then a second approach, all by hand.

                  Instead of asking what is it doing now, they said, ok, it is doing this, took control over the situation, and then, after landing probably wondered why was it doing that.
                  Not exactly. I think they did a swell job, all things considered, but they expedited the first landing attempt because they didn't know whatitwasdoingnow and decided it would be best to get it down before it did somethingelsenow. That caused them make some errors, such as extending flaps 40 with the yaw damper inop and not manually setting the N1 bugs. They also neglected to cross-check the ATC distance with their instruments and ended up high on the glidepath. Fortunately, none of these things lined up to cause any problems.

                  As the report states, the nature of the failure was not something the crew could be expected to identify in flight.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by kent olsen View Post
                    My first experience with electrical problems was in a DC-9 cargo aircraft. Snowy night in Oklahoma. As you step in the door there's a little door on the floor you open to access the cargo door controls. Well, snow got in there and melted and dripped down into the E&E (electronics) compartment causing us some issues that went away on level off and reappeared during the descent.

                    Another one with the snow was a crew of mine in the 747 that picked up some cargo in Anchorage on the way to Asia. Later in the flight the snow melted and dripped, again down into the E&E compartment causing some issues.
                    Were those non-standard freighter conversion mods? It seems odd that such a design vulnerability would be certified.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Were those non-standard freighter conversion mods? It seems odd that such a design vulnerability would be certified.
                      As opposed to a single AoA attack sensor being enough to be certified for the 737 Max???

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        All of our DC-9 cargo planes, both -10 and -30 had the same access to the door controls.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by kent olsen View Post
                          All of our DC-9 cargo planes, both -10 and -30 had the same access to the door controls.
                          That still doesn't mean they were not converted. It could just mean they were all given the same conversion. But vaztr said it best, the design could be a flaw that was there when Douglas put the thing together and was overlooked when certified, perhaps without the vision that they would be used for cargo but it wasn't an issue in the passenger configuration, because decades later we still have issues being overlooked, both by accident and by greasing the corporate leaders to look the other way.

                          Edit: So looking at the numbers about 2 dozen of each the 10 and 30 types were delivered as cargo variants. Of course though later on passenger versions were converted once they retired that service, and also even a plane delivered with use as a cargo carrier in mind doesn't mean it was properly designed without flaws for the purpose.

                          Just like a plane delivered for use as a passenger plane doesn't mean its going to be safe for 150 people to board it, they just have the perception that it is because the governing bodies said so.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X