Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

British Midland accident

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

  • British Midland accident

    Hi everyone,
    I'm a new user of this forum. I'm Italian so I apologize for the mistakes that I will make in my writings.
    Is there anyone who remembers the British Midland accidents, occurred in 1989 in England? A Boeing 737 crashed near the runway while attempting to land. After a serious problem occurred to engine n. 1 the crew mistakenly shut down the working engine (n. 2). Probably they were not familiar with the new instrument panel so they became very confused. Dozens of people died in that accident.
    My question is: why aircraft constructors don't install a camera system that makes the crew able to ckeck directly and in real time the main parts of the aircraft itself (such as engines, aerodynamics surfaces, landing gear, etc.)? Wouldn't be a help to improve the safety? I think it would be cheap, do you agree?
    I'm a fan of "Air crash investigations" series and in some accident cases the crew, despite the sofistication of the instrumentation, had to imagine what happened to the aircraft and the cause of its strange behavior is not immediately recognizable.
    Thanks in advance for your reply.

  • #2
    Kegworth, January 8th, 1989. Boeing 737-400 G-OBME. AAIB report here.

    This shows how close they came to East Midlands airport:



    Cheers,
    Les sanglots longs des violons de l'automne blessent mon coeur d'une langueur monotone.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by emmegi View Post
      Hi everyone,
      I'm a new user of this forum. I'm Italian so I apologize for the mistakes that I will make in my writings.
      Is there anyone who remembers the British Midland accidents, occurred in 1989 in England? A Boeing 737 crashed near the runway while attempting to land. After a serious problem occurred to engine n. 1 the crew mistakenly shut down the working engine (n. 2). Probably they were not familiar with the new instrument panel so they became very confused. Dozens of people died in that accident.
      My question is: why aircraft constructors don't install a camera system that makes the crew able to ckeck directly and in real time the main parts of the aircraft itself (such as engines, aerodynamics surfaces, landing gear, etc.)? Wouldn't be a help to improve the safety? I think it would be cheap, do you agree?
      I'm a fan of "Air crash investigations" series and in some accident cases the crew, despite the sofistication of the instrumentation, had to imagine what happened to the aircraft and the cause of its strange behavior is not immediately recognizable.
      Thanks in advance for your reply.
      This may have been the crash where the fire extinguisher switches were mis-wired - the pilots knew which engine was on fire - but the right fire switch was wired such that it would put out the left engine and visa versa.

      Adding dozens of video camera would be expensive, heavy, may not work in certain weather/darkness conditions, and pointless. There are status indicators for all the areas you mentioned.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
        This may have been the crash where the fire extinguisher switches were mis-wired - the pilots knew which engine was on fire - but the right fire switch was wired such that it would put out the left engine and visa versa.

        Adding dozens of video camera would be expensive, heavy, may not work in certain weather/darkness conditions, and pointless. There are status indicators for all the areas you mentioned.
        Nope. Improper Training/Pilot Error...

        They had engine shudder and smelled smoke. (on 737s prior to the 734(mishap aircraft) the aircond pack was off the #2 only, on the 734 its off both engines, the crew had flown the older 737's but was relatively new to the 734. So when they smelled smoke they assumed it was #2 was the problem. They pulled power lever back on the #2 and coincidentally the shuddering quit. Because the the shuddering quit, AND the smoke smell went away, plus at this time there was no fire warning indications on either engine, they again assumed it was #2 so they bagged the engine. All went well in the flight from here until they were in approach phase of the flight. Then the original discrepancy on #1 returned and a fire started and fire warning for #1 went off, here they figured out their mistake in bagging the wrong engine and #2 restarts were not successful.

        In this case the cameras would have been a waste of time/money. They didn't even look at the gauges in the flight station to see if there were any abnormal indications. So I doubt they would have looked at any cameras either.
        -Not an Airbus or Boeing guy here.
        -20 year veteran on the USN Lockheed P-3 Orion.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
          Adding dozens of video camera would be expensive, heavy, may not work in certain weather/darkness conditions, and pointless. There are status indicators for all the areas you mentioned.
          ...not sure this is still true. Cameras are cheap, small and extremely lightweight now. The extras weight would be the casings though. And CCDs are very sensitive to IR, which could be useful to see heat signature on top of cheap high power LEDs as "on command" lightning source.

          Comment


          • #6
            Not to disagree, but cameras would be a waste. There are ample cockpit indications that would tell you more than cameras would. In the case of the engine you would not see anything more than what the instruments would tell you. You cannot put cameras in the hot section, where this issue was.

            Comment


            • #7
              Not in an engine, of course. But there's a lot of places where crew can't see. No need for 24 but 2 or 3 cams located at strategic spots could transform accidents to incidents just by knowing what's happening.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ZilogMan View Post
                ...not sure this is still true. Cameras are cheap, small and extremely lightweight now. The extras weight would be the casings though. And CCDs are very sensitive to IR, which could be useful to see heat signature on top of cheap high power LEDs as "on command" lightning source.
                I participated in an aircraft camera study a few years - yes cameras are low cost, low weight, and compact. The weight and cost are due to the electrical or fiber optic cables, switching electronics, viewing screen(s), secondary structure, system certification, and on-going maintenance. The study also looked at putting cameras in the cockpit (controversial).

                Cameras are often installed on flight-test aircraft along with other instrumentation because weight is not a problem and wiring does not have to comply with commercial aircraft regulations.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by P3_Super_Bee View Post
                  Nope. Improper Training/Pilot Error...
                  After a quick search I found that cross wiring was suspect at one point but never found (unless I'm getting mixed up with another UK crash). See bottom of second column here:
                  http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%200196.html

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by P3_Super_Bee View Post
                    Nope. Improper Training/Pilot Error...

                    They had engine shudder and smelled smoke. (on 737s prior to the 734(mishap aircraft) the aircond pack was off the #2 only, on the 734 its off both engines, the crew had flown the older 737's but was relatively new to the 734.
                    .
                    Corrrection
                    All 737's have two AC pacs fed primarily by their associated engine, or either PAC from either engine through the isolation valve. The APU can also feed the #1 PAC in flight if the #1 engine bleed valve is closed

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by P3_Super_Bee View Post
                      20 year veteran on the USN Lockheed P-3 Orion..
                      Thread diversion!!!!!!!

                      I read in AW&ST last week that some P-3 aircraft is being rewinged.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
                        Thread diversion!!!!!!!

                        I read in AW&ST last week that some P-3 aircraft is being rewinged.
                        Been doing that for years...
                        -Not an Airbus or Boeing guy here.
                        -20 year veteran on the USN Lockheed P-3 Orion.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X