| |

Spanair Update

Similar Posts

  • | | |

    High Drama in US Airspace

    What: Cessna 172 en route from a Canadian flight school into US Airspace
    Where: US Airspace
    When: about 3 p.m
    Who: one person aboard
    Why: The flight was intercepted by U.S. military aircraft when the unnamed pilot flew into US Airspace and did not respond. The plane was reported as stolen from a Thunder Bay, Canada flight school. Canadian authorities requested that U.S. aircraft tail the plane in U.S. airspace, hence the two U.S. Air Force F-16 jets.

    The pilot, Yavuz Berke aka Adam Leon, landed on Highway 60 in Ellsinore, Mo., at 9:50 p.m. ET, and was caught by Missouri State Highway Patrol officers. He’s an ex-pat Turk, and naturalized Canadian. He is reportedly depressed and either left his girlfriend (or left her a note.) In any case, he left his car and keys at the airport.

    With 2 F-16’s on his tail all day, he’s incredibly lucky to be alive and currently enjoying the hospitality of whatever government facility is housing him now (and likely to be housing him for a very long time.)

    The category selected here is “pilot error” and “alarm.” And while this is actually a misuse of the sorting system, I’m thinking it is warranted because if this is not an error of the pilot and cause for alarm, what is?

    George’s Point of View

    Yavuz Berke aka Adam Leon is going to be enjoying government hospitality for a long, long time. Yavuz–or if I may call you Adam–as a parent and a human being, I am very sorry that you have chosen to damage your own life so terribly; and I am amazed and warmed by the restraint of our jet pilots who were charged at bringing you down should you prove a threat.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | |

    Iberia Emergency Landing in Madrid

    What: Iberia/Air Nostrum Canadair CRJ-200 en route from Madrid, to Valencia
    Where: Madrid
    When: Sep 13th 2010
    Why: The plane had successfully taken off from Madrid, then received an alert and returned to Madrid where the crew made a safe landing.

    Systems were repaired and the flight resumed an hour and a half later.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • |

    Fraud Lawsuit Filed

    An airplane mechanic and a retired FAA examiner falsely certified Flying Tiger inspections between October 2006 and October 2009 and are being charged with “with mail and wire fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice”

    Click to view or download lawsuit below

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | | | |

    Spanair JK5022: Final Report

    Update
    What: Spanair Flight JK5022, a 15-year-old MD-82 jet en route to Las Palmas in the Canary Islands.
    Where: Madrid airport Terminal Four
    When: Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2008 2:45pm
    Who: Carrying 166 passengers and nine crew, at the time of this writing, the number of fatalities had mounted to 154 people.
    Why: The jet swerved off the runway and caught fire during takeoff.

    The final report of Spanair Flight JK5022 was released, it claims that the pilots failed to deploy the flaps for takeoff. The report blames the crash on “pilot error.” The automated voice warning to alert the crew did not sound.

    Already more than one hour late, the flight experienced a technical issue with the plane (a sensor reporting excessive temperature in an air intake, and the temperature sensor was de-activated on the ground) that forced the first takeoff attempt to be aborted when there were failure signals taxiing away from the terminal. The aircraft was inspected and then tried to take-off for the second time, which ended in the crash.

    The National Transportation Safety Board said that “that the probable cause of the accident was the flightcrew’s failure to use the taxi checklist to ensure the flaps and slats were extended for takeoff. Contributing to the accident was the absence of electrical power to the airplane takeoff warning system which thus did not warn the flightcrew that the airplane was not configured properly for takeoff. The reason for the absence of electrical power could not be determined.

    A similar disaster occurred in the Northwest Flight 255 in Detroit in 1987 when 154 people also died in an MD-82 due to incorrect flap settings.

    As a consequence, Spanair and McDonnell Douglas now require a TOWS* system check prior to every flight.

    The Interim Report is available here.

    Final report (Spanish).PDF

    *The Take Off Warning System is part of CAWS. TOWS provides alert warnings on the following components involved in the configuration of the aircraft for takeoff: Flaps, Slats, Brakes, Auto brake, Auto spoilers, Spoilers and Stabilizer Trim.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | |

    Back in Court over Mangalore Ruling

    Tuesday, ruling about the May 2010 Boeing crash in Mangalore,India, the Indian Supreme Court apex court bench issued a notice to Air India and the government on a petition seeking a minimum compensation of Rs 75 lakh for each of the 158 passengers.

    Senior counsel Harish Salve told the court that under the Montreal convention the national carrier was obliged to pay a minimum compensation of 100,000 SDRs (special drawing rights) to families of the passengers who died in the crash.

    The court final hearing of the case is scheduled in April.

    Read More Mangalore Crash: Air India Express Boeing 737-800

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | |

    Australian Lawsuit against Rolls Royce Possible

    Australian Transport Safety Bureau has issued a safety alert.

    The Qantas A380 Rolls Royce engine failure was due to a (fatigue) cracked tube. The Australian Trade Practices Act allows Qantas to pursue a legal solution against rolls Royce, especially as it appears they were aware of engine problems (fatigue cracking in the thin side of an unevenly bored oil tube) but did not inform Qantas. If there were flawed oil tubes on the earliest “A-version” Trent 900s, have some of these survived in lagter models? Qantas no longer uses A version engines.

    George’s Point of View

    Good for Qantas, if they are going to sue.

    Now the passengers should sue Quantas for the close miss to a possible tragedy and for the mental stress.

    The Australian Report:
    Manufacturing problem potential factor in QF32 engine failure
    Date: 02 December 2010

    The ATSB has issued a safety recommendation about potential engine problems in some Airbus A380 aircraft.

    The safety recommendation identifies a potential manufacturing defect with an oil tube connection to the high-pressure (HP)/intermediate-pressure (IP) bearing structure of the Trent 900 engine installed in some A380 aircraft.

    The problem relates to the potential for misaligned oil pipe counter-boring, which could lead to fatigue cracking, oil leakage and potential engine failure from an oil fire within the HP/IP bearing buffer space.

    In response to the recommendation Rolls Royce, affected airlines and safety regulators are taking action to ensure the continued safe operation of A380 aircraft. The action involves the close inspection of affected engines and the removal from service of any engine which displays the suspected counter-boring problem.

    The ATSB will hold a media briefing tomorrow (Friday 3 December 2010) at 10.30am to accompany the release of its preliminary factual investigation report into the QF32 occurrence. ATSB Chief Commissioner Mr Martin Dolan will present the known facts gathered from the investigation and highlight the key safety issues that have resulted from the investigation to date.

    Summary
    On 4 November 2010, at 0157 Universal Coordinated Time (UTC), an Airbus A380 aircraft, registered VH-OQA (OQA), being operated as Qantas flight 32, departed from runway 20 centre (20C) at Changi Airport, Singapore for Sydney, New South Wales. On board the aircraft were five flight crew, 24 cabin crew and 440 passengers (a total of 469 persons on board).

    It was reported that shortly after departing Singapore the No. 2 engine failed. The aircraft was returned to Singapore for a safe landing after reducing its fuel load. The investigation is continuing.

    A report has not yet been released for this investigation.

    Preliminary report to be released 10.30am Friday, 3 December 2010

    On 4 November 2010, at 0157 Universal Coordinated Time (UTC), an
    Airbus A380 aircraft, registered VH-OQA (OQA), being operated as
    Qantas flight 32, departed from runway 20 centre (20C) at Changi
    Airport, Singapore for Sydney, New South Wales. On board the
    aircraft were five flight crew, 24 cabin crew and 440 passengers (a
    total of 469 persons on board).

    It was reported that shortly after departing Singapore the No. 2
    engine failed. The aircraft was returned to Singapore for a safe
    landing after reducing its fuel load. The investigation is
    continuing.

    A report has not yet been released for this investigation.

    Preliminary report to be released 10.30am Friday, 3 December
    2010

    Recommendation

    Safety Recommendation AO-2010-089-SR-012

    On 4 November 2010, at 0157 Universal Coordinated
    Time (UTC), an Airbus A380 aircraft, registered VH-OQA (OQA), being
    operated as Qantas flight 32, departed from runway 20 centre (20C)
    at Changi Airport, Singapore for Sydney, New South Wales. On board
    the aircraft were five flight crew, 24 cabin crew and 440
    passengers (a total of 469 persons on board).

    Following a normal takeoff, the crew retracted the
    landing gear and flaps. The crew reported that, while maintaining
    250 kts in the climb and passing 7,000 ft above mean sea level,
    they heard two almost coincident ‘loud bangs’, followed shortly
    after by indications of a failure of the No 2 engine.

    The crew advised Singapore Air Traffic Control of the
    situation and were provided with radar vectors to a holding
    pattern. The crew undertook a series of actions before returning
    the aircraft to land at Singapore. There were no reported injuries
    to the crew or passengers on the aircraft. There were reports of
    minor injuries to two persons on Batam Island, Indonesia.

    A subsequent examination of the aircraft indicated
    that the No 2 engine had sustained an uncontained failure of the
    Intermediate Pressure (IP) turbine disc. Sections of the liberated
    disc had penetrated the left wing and the left wing-to-fuselage
    fairing, resulting in structural and systems damage to the
    aircraft. The No 2 engine was removed from the aircraft and
    disassembled in an authorised engine workshop for examination,
    under the supervision of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. In
    addition, a large section of liberated IP turbine disc was also
    recovered from Batam Island for examination. Those examinations are
    ongoing.

    As a result of this occurrence, a number of safety
    actions were immediately undertaken by Qantas, the Australian Civil
    Aviation Safety Authority, Airbus, Rolls-Royce plc, and the
    European Aviation Safety Agency.

    The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has prepared a
    Preliminary Factual Report on the investigation of the occurrence.
    That report will be publically released on 3 December 2010.

    Recent developments

    Recent examination of components removed from the
    failed engine at the Rolls-Royce plc facility in Derby, United
    Kingdom, have identified the presence of fatigue cracking within a
    stub pipe that feeds oil into the High Pressure (HP) / Intermediate
    Pressure (IP) bearing structure. While the analysis of the engine
    failure is ongoing, it has been identified that the leakage of oil
    into the HP/IP bearing structure buffer space (and a subsequent oil
    fire within that area) was central to the engine failure and IP
    turbine disc liberation event.

    Further examination of the cracked area has
    identified the axial misalignment of an area of counter?boring
    within the inner diameter of the stub pipe; the misalignment having
    produced a localised thinning of the pipe wall on one side. The
    area of fatigue cracking was associated with the area of pipe wall
    thinning

    Critical Safety Issue

    Misaligned stub pipe counter-boring is understood to be related
    to the manufacturing process. This condition could lead to an
    elevated risk of fatigue crack initiation and growth, oil leakage
    and potential catastrophic engine failure from a resulting oil
    fire.

    As a result of the identified critical safety issue, the
    Australian Transport Safety Bureau issues the following safety
    recommendation:

    Safety Recommendation AO-2010-089-AR-012

    The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends
    that Rolls-Royce plc address the safety issue and take actions
    necessary to ensure the safety of flight operations in transport
    aircraft equipped with Rolls-Royce plc Trent 900 series
    engines.

    Date: 04 Nov 2010 Investigation Status: Active
    Time: 0201 UTC Investigation Type: Occurrence Investigation
    Location: overhead Batam Island, Indonesia Occurrence Type: Powerplant / Propulsion
    State: International Occurrence Class: Mechanical
    Occurrence Category: Serious Incident
    Report Status: Pending Highest Injury Level: None

    Aircraft Details

    Aircraft Manufacturer: Airbus
    Aircraft Model: A380
    Aircraft Registration: VH-OQA
    Serial Number: 0014
    Type of Operation: Air Transport High Capacity
    Damage to Aircraft: Serious
    Departure Point: Singapore
    Destination: Sydney, NSW
    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.