It happed again, No airspeed

[kent olsen]

777 freighter out of Frankfurt, couple months ago. No airspeed after mx, they forgot to hook the lines back up. Crew did a great job. Flew around at 6000 ft figuring things out and returned for a safe landing.

[Evan]

No airspeed after mx, they forgot to hook the lines back up.

Because that was left to memory? No checklists and oversight? All three air data circuits? Do you have a link?

[Gabriel]

777 freighter out of Frankfurt, couple months ago. No airspeed after mx, they forgot to hook the lines back up. Crew did a great job. Flew around at 6000 ft figuring things out and returned for a safe landing.

Any link?
It would be interesting to have more details. It should have been something more subtle than just "no airspeed" or, one would think, they would have aborted the take-off within 6000 ft of runway rather tan 6000 ft of altitude.

[kent olsen]

Oh! I thought you guys checked this site on a regular basis. aviation-safety.net

[Gabriel]

Thank you. This is the link: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/246156

And....

It should have been something more subtle than just "no airspeed" or, one would think, they would have aborted the take-off within 6000 ft of runway rather tan 6000 ft of altitude.

This is exactly what I had in mind:

After landing, it was found that the sensors of the left and right static systems were not connected.

[Evan]

After landing, it was found that the sensors of the left and right static systems were not connected.

And how the hell is that possible? No oversight? No sign-offs? Something very broken?

[Evan]

To ensure proper functioning of the pitot-static system, a leak test and a system test were then scheduled. This work was signed off the corresponding work cards as having been carried out without any problems.

Yup. Broken.

BTW, the situation was never 'no airspeeds'. They had the ISFD airspeed. It just seems to have taken them a while to look there.

[Gabriel]

BTW, the situation was never 'no airspeeds'. They had the ISFD airspeed. It just seems to have taken them a while to look there.

Which is understandable since both PFD ASI were agreeing (apparently).
Strange that inconsistent altitude readings are not mentioned throughout the report.

[Evan]

Which is understandable since both PFD ASI were agreeing (apparently).

Both expressed surprise that it was not possible to reach the required speed at full thrust, even though the longitudinal inclination was already unusually low. After the indicated tailwind had increased to 100 kt, the commander concluded, "[...] well, that seems very strange to me, I would say that it's unreliable airspeed."
As a result, the commander and the copilot agreed to switch their roles as pilot monitoring and pilot flying, and the commander took over the controls.
Shortly thereafter, the copilot noted that the Integrated Standby Flight Display indicated a speed of 300 kt.

They had the ISFD airspeed. It just seems to have taken the F/O a while to look there. No mention of this ever occuring to the captain.

[Gabriel]

They had the ISFD airspeed. It just seems to have taken the F/O a while to look there. No mention of this ever occurring to the captain.

Yes, and again:

Which is understandable since both PFD ASI were agreeing (apparently).

When you have 2 of the 3 airspeed indicators giving the same reading, it is (at least initially) not considered an "unreliable airspeed" situation but a "speed disagree" where you discard the not-matching value and take the matching 2 values as good. There is no immediate reason to look at the ISFD when airspeed in the 2 PFD were matching. So they didn't even call a speed disagree on the ISFD.

When they realized that the power and pitch was inconsistent with the performance indicated in the PFD they looked up at the ISFD and saw that that one was consistent with the power and pitch, so they declared the PFDs unreliable and flew the rest of the flight on the ISFD. A good reason to switch the control over to the captain is that the ISFD is on the left side of the panel.

[Evan]

Yes, and again:


When you have 2 of the 3 airspeed indicators giving the same reading, it is (at least initially) not considered an "unreliable airspeed" situation but a "speed disagree" where you discard the not-matching value and take the matching 2 values as good. There is no immediate reason to look at the ISFD when airspeed in the 2 PFD were matching. So they didn't even call a speed disagree on the ISFD.

When they realized that the power and pitch was inconsistent with the performance indicated in the PFD they looked up at the ISFD and saw that that one was consistent with the power and pitch, so they declared the PFDs unreliable and flew the rest of the flight on the ISFD. A good reason to switch the control over to the captain is that the ISFD is on the left side of the panel.

Maybe read that again. They became very aware of the oddness in the airspeed indications. Was there really a sudden 100kt tailwind at 6000ft? Hmmm. I would think the first order of business would be to compare all three indications and declare a disagree if any of them were not in agreement. Then they must decide which, if any, of the indications are most reliable. I would guess the higher one and the one most expected for the conditions. But, according to the 'report', even after taking command, the captain (PF) did not mention the ISFD speed. The F/O mentioned this 'shortly thereafter' as they were approaching Vmo. It seems to me a bit late in the game.

I second your point about pressure altitude. Also VSI. If the lines weren't hooked up, I don't see how they would function.

[LH-B744]

Oh! I thought you guys checked this site on a regular basis. aviation-safety.net

Now I know two men who have these red stripes. Hm. That really seems to be something desirable!

[LH-B744]

Ladies. I definitely have to be here more often. Let me quote the threadstarter.

777 freighter out of Frankfurt, couple months ago.

But it wasn't her, or one of her sisters (?):
wikimedia dot org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Lufthansa_Cargo%2C_D-ALFD%2C_Boeing_777-FBT_%2820353445885%29.jpg

I have just decided to use our own database, these wikipedia pictures are good, but we don't necessarily need weblinks which are longer than a 777, or do we. The jp database, if the a/c type is in it, produces weblinks which are shorter than a 777, which I appreciate. Let's see. And You can bet, we have even the better photo:

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9964310

I like to second Evan with his question here in his #2, Kent, do you have a link. And Kent's answer is, No I don't. Brilliant.

Kent, here you are in the jetphotos aviation safety group. Normally we do not need weblinks, if Evan, or Gabriel or 3WE has seen it with his own eyes, that's enough.

But, if Evan or in case it really happened on Rhein/Main International, I have never heard of it, a weblink is the best thing you can do. Aviation Herald is good enough. Or something as good as that.

No airspeed during climb or during step climb, in a 777F.

at full thrust

That's not nothing.

Good that it happened at alt 6000 . Which in my eyes, at Rhein/Main Intl is a good alt to review things, and in case you see something in the cockpit which does not really really seem to be ready for the long way e.g. to Dulles International, we go back to the home airport, back to Rhein/Main.

[LH-B744]

Again I must confess that I have not read everything here in this topic.

But I know that once you took off in a heavy Boeing, you sooner or later like to activate LNAV, and a little bit later, if available, also VNAV.

Again I must confess that I have never used VNAV, not in my entire life! My opinion is, ahead is always where I sit, in case of a doubt on the front left seat. I like the computers on board a B744 simulator very much, although, sometimes a little bit complex to switch back from VNAV to "normal" v/s a/p mode.

For the 777 we should better ask the Aviation Analyst. 30 years at one of the major airlines in America, and he retired as a B773ER Flight Captain.

Is it possible that the 777F was already in VNAV mode?
And for the shortest way out of that, you better ask Les Abend, or the two pilots in that LH-B777F.

PS: A thing which always was very hard for me to believe is, the big difference between the passage section of one airline, and our freighters.
B773ER (although LH has never owned one, ................ .... at least not in LH colors), range: 7,300 nautical miles.
That's exactly what I know from the B744. Which is a good value, I never needed more than that.

B777F, the freighter, range: 9200 km or definitely not more than 4,960 nautical miles.
Which in my eyes is ... not really ridiculous, but... hey, I would not say that my avatar is good for the US West Coast, with such a short range!

[LH-B744]

Ah, now I see the difference, sorry. The 777F is more than 10 meters shorter than the B773ER! It seems to be natural that the Freighter is not good for more than 7000 nmi,
especially not when the 777F (MTOW 766,800 lb) is as heavy as the 773ER (MTOW 775,000 lb).

Thus, I assume that in a 777F the max fob is clearly less than in a B773ER, i.e. the range of the freighter must be shorter.

Sorry but today I really learn one or two things about the 777. Which imho is not so bad for somebody who never in his life has used a Freighter simulator.

PS: I said that I've never used VNAV in my entire life. Which is a lie. I have once tried it between Rhein/Main and LFML Marignane Intl. Vnav is a good tool when the weather forecast which you have in your hands five minutes before t/o at least has the chance to be approximately the same when you go on final.
But for the long way, e.g. to Dulles International, I rather trust the v/s mode and an offset route, if needed.
Another thing which I love in the heavy Boeings is, you switch off a/t and lay your hands on the throttle quadrant, e.g. for step climb,
but she stays in LNAV mode.