Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Airbus tells pilots to check fuel tank every 30min after VS A346 emerg landing at AMS

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

  • Airbus tells pilots to check fuel tank every 30min after VS A346 emerg landing at AMS

    HongKong media reports that Airbus has ordered all Airbus pilots to check the fuel tanks every 30 minutes. This is invoked after an A340-600 of Virgin flying from HKG to LHR made an emergency landing at AMS in Feb 2005 due to fuel tank problems. It is reported that the computer on the A340 malfunctioned and stopped dispatching fuel from the central fuel tank to the fuel tanks in the wings 3 hours into the flight. Engine number 1 failed a few hours later and engine number 4 soon followed. The cockpit crews first thought the plane was leaking fuel but later found that it's the computer problem, so they started manually feeding fuel across tanks. The plane finally made an emergency landing at AMS.

    Britain's CAA also criticized in the incident report that the pilots nowadays rely on computers too much and sometimes do not notice problems early on.
    Next:
    None Planned


  • #2
    When did this happen fo VS?
    -Kevin

    Comment


    • #3
      Re:

      Goes to show computers can be just as bad as humans sometimes.

      Foxtrot

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Foxtrot
        Goes to show computers can be just as bad as humans sometimes.

        Foxtrot
        One more reason why a 4-engined plane is not much safer than an ETOPS twin.
        adaequatio rei et intellectus

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by vojoboy
          One more reason why a 4-engined plane is not much safer than an ETOPS twin.
          4 engines means "4 more thinkgs to go wrong, 4 times as many things that can go wrong" - quote from a boeing employee on a documentry.
          -Kevin

          Comment


          • #6
            I can add, "4 more money to be spent on maintenance costs, 4 more chances employees get fired to reduce cost". OK, I don't hate 4 engines, they just costs more, they looks good though.

            Back to Virgin A346, It's good that the pilot can land the airplane safely, even they must be surprised when they found out that the fuel tank is still pretty full with no leak. Sometimes pilots face a dillema, the biggest question is "Is it computer problem or Is it real?"

            What surprises me is Airbus reaction to request the pilots to check fuel status every 30 minutes. I think they should do more to reduce same thing happen in the future.

            Off topic but necessary:
            Some years before an Air Transat A330 of Canada fly trans-Atlantic and they had fuel-loss completely, both engine went off, glided and landed safely in Azores for emergency landing, ... blew up some tires too. Pilots believed to be a computer error, and they were surprised when the investigation found all tanks were completely empty and there is a leak.

            Comment


            • #7
              4 Engines only cost more money depending on the route they fly. Not every twin can out do 4 engine jets. Plus they are faster than most twins (duh)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by vojoboy
                One more reason why a 4-engined plane is not much safer than an ETOPS twin.
                You prat, it has nothing to do with the number of engines. It's merely the computer that malfunctioned. The fact that this aircraft can continue on to Europe with one, then two engines out really throws your anti-quad b/s out the window. If this were a 777 flight in the same scenario then the aircraft probably would have ended up making an emergency landing at Xian or Urumqi which is much more inconvenient for the passengers.

                Goes to show time and time again, 4 engines 4 long haul is alive and well.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by A340_flyer
                  You prat,.
                  Now... Now... dont get too touchy. I would have made the same comment if it were one of VS' 744's instead of the A340

                  Originally posted by A340_flyer
                  it has nothing to do with the number of engines.
                  Ehem ehem.. I was trying to point out that a 4 engined aircraft is as much affected by fuel problems as it's ETOPS twin brethren.

                  Originally posted by A340_flyer
                  It's merely the computer that malfunctioned. The fact that this aircraft can continue on to Europe with one, then two engines out really throws your anti-quad b/s out the window. If this were a 777 flight in the same scenario then the aircraft probably would have ended up making an emergency landing at Xian or Urumqi which is much more inconvenient for the passengers.
                  Whether it is in Europe or in Middle Asia, the plane still has to stop flying if it is having a major fuel problem.

                  Originally posted by A340_flyer
                  Goes to show time and time again, 4 engines 4 long haul is alive and well.
                  And this incident had to happen to the same airline who connived with a certain manufacturer about this "4 engines 4 long haul" crap. All I can say is... Good Stuff!!!

                  To go a bit off topic, Sir Richard should survey the passengers of that flight and ask them if they wanted the flight to continue as far as the plane could or if they preferred to have the aircraft land as soon as possible.
                  I guess the results should be something like: "17% to 18% of passengers will go out of their way and tell the airline to just land the freakin plane ASAP"
                  adaequatio rei et intellectus

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Is this meaning that all airbus aircraft including the A300-600, A310 and the earlier versions of the A300 (anolouge cockpit with FE)?
                    Irfan Faiz Nazerollnizam. Computer geek and gamer

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by fjki98
                      Is this meaning that all airbus aircraft including the A300-600, A310 and the earlier versions of the A300 (anolouge cockpit with FE)?
                      We'll have to check for any Airworthiness Directives as a result of this to find out which models are affected. Im just guessing here but it might be for the widebodies excluding those that are not fly-by-wire.
                      adaequatio rei et intellectus

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by A340_flyer
                        The fact that this aircraft can continue on to Europe with one, then two engines out really throws your anti-quad b/s out the window.
                        Hate to break this to ya, but a quad with two engines out is operating at 50% maximum available thrust, the same as any IFSD twin. The problem there being that all twinjets are designed and certified for complete systems redundancy at full operational parameters while suffering a 50% power reduction; yet quads are only certified for such up to a maximum threshold of 33%... with no guarantee of system integrity (to the level of certification) thereafter.




                        Originally posted by A340_flyer
                        If this were a 777 flight in the same scenario then the aircraft probably would have ended up making an emergency landing at Xian or Urumqi which is much more inconvenient for the passengers.
                        You have absolutely no corroboration whatsoever to back up that statement.



                        Originally posted by A340_flyer
                        Goes to show time and time again, 4 engines 4 long haul is alive and well.
                        ...actually, all this goes to show is your tendency to fling emotionally-charged statements usually devoid of supporting evidence
                        Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

                        Check it out!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          You gents leave me scratching my head with the arguments you put forward.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ptbodale
                            You gents leave me scratching my head with the arguments you put forward.
                            kinda leaves me scratching my balls...... oh wait.....that could be the crabs.
                            Work Right, Fly Hard.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              To go a bit off topic, Sir Richard should survey the passengers of that flight and ask them if they wanted the flight to continue as far as the plane could or if they preferred to have the aircraft land as soon as possible.
                              I guess the results should be something like: "17% to 18% of passengers will go out of their way and tell the airline to just land the freakin plane ASAP"

                              Ah, of course, it's the passengers that tell the captain what to do in an emergency. After all they are qualified to deal with such situations, aren't they. In fact, wouldn't it be better if each time there's an emergency the captain walked into the cabin to take a survey of what the passengers wanted to do...

                              The decision is the captain's, and any poll, survey or whatever else taken of the passengers has no bearing on the decision made.
                              "The Director also sets the record straight on what would happen if oxygen masks were to drop from the ceiling: The passengers freak out with abandon, instead of continuing to chat amiably, as though lunch were being served, like they do on those in-flight safety videos."

                              -- The LA Times, in a review of 'Flightplan'

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X