Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
11-02-2011 | 04:07 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,506
Likes: 0
From: 737 ATL
LOT said the plane suffered "a central hydraulic system failure" about half an hour after leaving Newark. The decision was made to continue to Warsaw's Frederic Chopin airport, apparently in order to use up the heavy fuel load supplied for the trans-Atlantic flight..
Do you head out onto the tracks after losing the center hydraulic system? ETOPS w/o a hyd generator?
I can certainly understand dumping and burning fuel before landing but do you go over the big water?
Maybe you do, but only if you know EXACTLY what failed and that it can't get any worse. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Failure of center hydraulics alone should not have prevented gear extension.
I'm with Waves. The media might already have this crew portrayed as heroes but professional airline pilots are gonna need some more facts before reaching that conclusion. Something's not right here.
Last edited by Check Essential; 11-02-2011 at 05:04 PM.
11-02-2011 | 04:44 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
I am a little puzzled as to why this LOT 767 aircraft ended up landing with the gear up. I am not second guessing the Captain, but I am confused as to what actually happened. I’ve posted the following on a few sites but I haven’t heard anything back.
“Reports have the cause as a center hydraulic system failure. If that was the only failure, then the landing gear should have been extended using the Alternate Gear Extension System. The 767 center hydraulic system has two independent AC electrical pumps, an air driven demand pump (ADP), and an emergency Ram Air Turbine (RAT) to power the center system components. The system also incorporates a standpipe in the hydraulic fluid reservoir at 17% to prevent a complete loss of fluid in the event of a component leak. Inoperative items with a complete loss of the center hydraulic system include center auto pilot (A/P), right A/P stab trim, some spoilers, ½ stab trim, NORMAL flap and gear operation, and auto speedbrake system. Alternate gear extension is fully functional unless this hydraulic failure is accompanied with or caused by a total electrical failure. With a total electrical failure including the depletion of all battery power, a specific hydraulic shuttle valve that is held open electrically will then close and not allow the gear or flaps to be lowered normally or even by using alternate extension methods. A total electrical failure is extremely remote, especially for the 767ER which has an additional hydraulically driven generator (HDG) electrical power source. An electrical failure is not mentioned as a cause, and certainly does not appear to be the case here because the flaps were down. Any single jammed gear or gear door would not prevent the other two from extending. If this less than desirable landing scenario was caused by the failure of the center hydraulic system, then I believe there must have been an electrical failure in the hydraulic shuttle valve as well. In other words, a dual system failure. As unlikely as that may be, it is possible I suppose. Any other 767 drivers have any ideas? Am I missing something? BTW: The 757 hydraulic systems were designed differently to avoid this scenario altogether.”
It makes me wonder if the crew overlooked something as simple as the alternate gear extension. Heros to dirtbags in 60 seconds. LOL I hope not. What say you.
“Reports have the cause as a center hydraulic system failure. If that was the only failure, then the landing gear should have been extended using the Alternate Gear Extension System. The 767 center hydraulic system has two independent AC electrical pumps, an air driven demand pump (ADP), and an emergency Ram Air Turbine (RAT) to power the center system components. The system also incorporates a standpipe in the hydraulic fluid reservoir at 17% to prevent a complete loss of fluid in the event of a component leak. Inoperative items with a complete loss of the center hydraulic system include center auto pilot (A/P), right A/P stab trim, some spoilers, ½ stab trim, NORMAL flap and gear operation, and auto speedbrake system. Alternate gear extension is fully functional unless this hydraulic failure is accompanied with or caused by a total electrical failure. With a total electrical failure including the depletion of all battery power, a specific hydraulic shuttle valve that is held open electrically will then close and not allow the gear or flaps to be lowered normally or even by using alternate extension methods. A total electrical failure is extremely remote, especially for the 767ER which has an additional hydraulically driven generator (HDG) electrical power source. An electrical failure is not mentioned as a cause, and certainly does not appear to be the case here because the flaps were down. Any single jammed gear or gear door would not prevent the other two from extending. If this less than desirable landing scenario was caused by the failure of the center hydraulic system, then I believe there must have been an electrical failure in the hydraulic shuttle valve as well. In other words, a dual system failure. As unlikely as that may be, it is possible I suppose. Any other 767 drivers have any ideas? Am I missing something? BTW: The 757 hydraulic systems were designed differently to avoid this scenario altogether.”
It makes me wonder if the crew overlooked something as simple as the alternate gear extension. Heros to dirtbags in 60 seconds. LOL I hope not. What say you.
Would the loss of the center system caused by a leak in the reservoir below the standpipe change your pooch screwing scenario?
11-02-2011 | 04:45 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
11-02-2011 | 04:54 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,877
Likes: 193
Yes, A loss of the center system causes a loss of a critical etops component the HMG. It also presents all kinds of other issues from fumes to fire to what happens if you had to divert for another reason such as a additional mechanical or medical. The FAA is going to have a lot of questions. The good news is the positive press will help the crew.
11-02-2011 | 04:57 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 602
Likes: 0
From: SLC 767ER Captain
@Bill Lumberg: Bill this blowin smoke article has several flaws to begin with. The first articles put out had them four hours into flight when the center hydraulic system failed. This would put them past the mid point on the Oceanic Tracks. A decision to continue to destination from that point is somewhat understandable, but to continue to destination after only an hour and a half airborne would have been highly risky and a bad decision. I doubt that is when they had the failure. Secondly, the landing gear AND the gear doors are hydraulically controlled, not electrically controlled. The only electric motors involved with the gear doors are during the Alternate Gear Extension System activation. This switch uses an electric motor to trip the locking mechanism for each gear and releases all door and gear uplocks and the landing gear free fall to the down and locked position. Thirdly, the article incorrectly states: “For the main and nose gears to have failed to lower, either or both may have malfunctioned.” Each landing gear truck is mechanically independent so all three would have to fail at the same time. Fourthly the article states: “Rare as total undercarriage failure is, pilots regularly train on simulators to execute this emergency procedure.” This is a false statement as well. We don’t train for belly landings. Fifthly, the article states: “touching down gingerly with the tail skid.” It’s difficult to determine if the tail skid is actually down or not, but since it can only be extended with center hydraulic system pressure, how did it come down? Who knows, that may be a key element. It may have just been residual pressure.
11-02-2011 | 04:59 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 602
Likes: 0
From: SLC 767ER Captain
Unfortunately not at all. Center Hydraulics is not needed whatsoever to lower the gear. The Alternate Gear Extension system doesn't require hydraulics, just electrical power. Electrical power is needed to hold open the hydraulic shuttle valve for lowering the gear normally using center hydraulics pressure and electrical power is needed for the electric motors to operate the door and gear uplocks when using the Alternate Extension System. We have already determined they had electrical power, so why weren't the gear lowered using the Alternate method? It's possible that the pooch got screwed, but I can't say that with 100% certainty. I also say it's a bit premature for the media to call them hero's, but hey, our profession could use a few more hero's to improve how the media view us. They have already forgotten the time I was in Macho Grande! LMAO
Last edited by Waves; 11-02-2011 at 05:18 PM.
11-02-2011 | 05:00 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
Agreed. In the end they will have no choice but to sumbit to either massive, immediate austerity measures to the welfare/warfare machines that the left and the right will never do, or to simply print the money. They are printing it now anyway, but they are finding buyers for it. When that ends we will all eat a huge load of stagflation lasting years. Before they wise up, they will print more money trying to "stimulate" their way out of it, making things worse in the process, making the already bad even worse before it finally gets better.
The talking heads will pimp their "market cycle" theory and keynsean fraudnomics 24/7 for years without challenge from the elites in the media and academia, and the pension mongers in congress will rubber stamp whatever comes their way.
The American people have already been directly threatened with martial law (despite the fact that it does not legally exist) by Berkane and Geithner if we don't automatically pass whatever 5000 page bill du jour nobody's read that suddenly appeared on everyone's desk for a morning vote the next day, and we've fallen for it every time.
We've seen the biggest poitical shift in congress in 70 years last year over the out of control spending, yet nothing has changed. Both sides squabble over a fraction of one percent, then settle on even less.
So yes, we are going to absolutely feast on inflation. The definiton of inflation has been modified over the years to hide the true cost to the people and its about to be modified again to further hide its effects.
I was just being sarcastic with the "raise over the life of" nonsense that ALPA and the company constantly try to sell us on. Double digit inflation for a few years could mean we get 50% raises over the life of a typical 4 or 5 year contract and still lose buying power. No one knows this better than RA with his work on the ATL fed board of governors. He even specifically mentioned stagflation as both a general economic threat as well as a specific industry issue in a very recent letter to the employees.
Whatever happens with C2012, I will not sit idly by and let a malevolent management and/or an incompetent union leadership sell their "raise over the life of" snake oil propaganda without making sure at least reasonable, average to expected inflation, compounded yearly, is 100% backed out of any and all claims of "raise over the life of". Its time we own how this debate is framed.
If we as a group settle for less, then we settle for less. Shame on us to be sure, but there is no way we are going to allow us to settle for anything while calling it more than it is.
In any case, getting back to the timeline, I'm not sure when its really going to start picking up, as it depends on many factors that haven't fully played out yet. The core causes of inflation are happening right now, so its acceleration is a certainty. The only question is when. Our dollar bubble and debt bubbles will really start popping when we are no longer able to monetize the debt to foreign creditors and they stop buying it. By then we will be in the 15-20 trillion range (not even including long term unfunded obligations) and the interest alone to service what we have, even assuming a permantly balanced budget at that point [yeah right, as if!] will exceed the Reagan defense budgets on a yearly basis. We are seeing inflation now, but the talking heads are denying it because they are hiding behind revamped economic sophistry imbibed definitions, but we will really be dealing with it in the near future. That's why I said in a couple years, but I agree we're not doing ourselves any favors right now either.
The talking heads will pimp their "market cycle" theory and keynsean fraudnomics 24/7 for years without challenge from the elites in the media and academia, and the pension mongers in congress will rubber stamp whatever comes their way.
The American people have already been directly threatened with martial law (despite the fact that it does not legally exist) by Berkane and Geithner if we don't automatically pass whatever 5000 page bill du jour nobody's read that suddenly appeared on everyone's desk for a morning vote the next day, and we've fallen for it every time.
We've seen the biggest poitical shift in congress in 70 years last year over the out of control spending, yet nothing has changed. Both sides squabble over a fraction of one percent, then settle on even less.
So yes, we are going to absolutely feast on inflation. The definiton of inflation has been modified over the years to hide the true cost to the people and its about to be modified again to further hide its effects.
I was just being sarcastic with the "raise over the life of" nonsense that ALPA and the company constantly try to sell us on. Double digit inflation for a few years could mean we get 50% raises over the life of a typical 4 or 5 year contract and still lose buying power. No one knows this better than RA with his work on the ATL fed board of governors. He even specifically mentioned stagflation as both a general economic threat as well as a specific industry issue in a very recent letter to the employees.
Whatever happens with C2012, I will not sit idly by and let a malevolent management and/or an incompetent union leadership sell their "raise over the life of" snake oil propaganda without making sure at least reasonable, average to expected inflation, compounded yearly, is 100% backed out of any and all claims of "raise over the life of". Its time we own how this debate is framed.
If we as a group settle for less, then we settle for less. Shame on us to be sure, but there is no way we are going to allow us to settle for anything while calling it more than it is.
In any case, getting back to the timeline, I'm not sure when its really going to start picking up, as it depends on many factors that haven't fully played out yet. The core causes of inflation are happening right now, so its acceleration is a certainty. The only question is when. Our dollar bubble and debt bubbles will really start popping when we are no longer able to monetize the debt to foreign creditors and they stop buying it. By then we will be in the 15-20 trillion range (not even including long term unfunded obligations) and the interest alone to service what we have, even assuming a permantly balanced budget at that point [yeah right, as if!] will exceed the Reagan defense budgets on a yearly basis. We are seeing inflation now, but the talking heads are denying it because they are hiding behind revamped economic sophistry imbibed definitions, but we will really be dealing with it in the near future. That's why I said in a couple years, but I agree we're not doing ourselves any favors right now either.
Gloopy; I agree totally with your assesment. Way better said than I could do. Last debt auction only sold 60% to foreign bidders (that has been a trend for about 1.5 years now). An unnamed buyer (the fed ?) bought 40% of the debt they (themselves) were selling. This is a very dangerous and potentially damaging game they are playing economically.
11-02-2011 | 05:01 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,890
Likes: 0
From: 737A
11-02-2011 | 05:04 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 602
Likes: 0
From: SLC 767ER Captain
Yes, A loss of the center system causes a loss of a critical etops component the HMG. It also presents all kinds of other issues from fumes to fire to what happens if you had to divert for another reason such as a additional mechanical or medical. The FAA is going to have a lot of questions. The good news is the positive press will help the crew.
11-02-2011 | 05:24 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Right on the money Sailingfun. To continue to destination if only an hour and a half in flight would be a very bad decision. Again, I suspect the other articles that said four hours into their flight is more accurate. At least I hope for their sake anyway. I aso hope we get a real answer as to the cause, because their current explanation doesn't meet muster.
Sept. 24, 2006
Just nine seconds after taking off on Feb. 20, 2005, there was trouble on British Airways Flight 268.
On its flight from Los Angeles to London, one of the 747's four engines malfunctioned and burst into flames.
"It appears we have flames coming out, number one or number two engines. … We're shutting it down," the flight's pilots told Los Angeles Air Traffic Control.
The fire was extinguished, but the engine was knocked out of commission. But instead of turning back, the pilot decided to continue on to England, 5,000 miles away.
"We just decided we want to set off on our flight plan route and get as far as we can," the pilot told the air traffic controllers. "So we'd like clearance to continue as planned."
"The tower controller, who had seen the fire, asked the departure controller, 'Is he going?' " said Scott McCartney, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal who covered the story. "And he said, 'Yes, he's going,' and then a bit later he said, 'If you saw what we saw you would be amazed by that.' "
Plane Flies Despite Engine Failure Watch Video
U.S. regulations are very clear about what a pilot should do if an engine goes out.
"If you lose one engine you land at the nearest suitable airport," said John Nance, an ABC News aviation consultant, "and you could lose your license."
But British regulations allow the pilot to decide if it's safe to go on. The pilot consulted with British Airways officials in England. They decided to keep flying.
The incident raised questions about whether the decision involving flight 268 was influenced by economic factors. After all, dumping fuel to return to Los Angeles International Airport and compensating passengers could have cost more than $300,000.
British Airways said economics played no role.
"The Air Accident Safety Investigation Board, Britain's version of the NTSB, found that the aircraft had sufficient fuel and performance to continue the flight safely," the airline said.
Flight 268 did make it to England, although the plane landed in Manchester, not London, because it was running low on fuel.
A year and a half later, questions remain: Did the airline put the passengers and crew at risk?
"That's what happened here," Nance told ABC News. "They reduced the margins of safety. And some statement was made by somebody in Britain that well, it's almost an infinitesimal possibility that they might lose another engine. … That just isn't an operable statement."
The case was not isolated. The Wall Street Journal reported that a total of 15 British Airways 747s in the last five years have lost one engine and kept going to their destination.
Just nine seconds after taking off on Feb. 20, 2005, there was trouble on British Airways Flight 268.
On its flight from Los Angeles to London, one of the 747's four engines malfunctioned and burst into flames.
"It appears we have flames coming out, number one or number two engines. … We're shutting it down," the flight's pilots told Los Angeles Air Traffic Control.
The fire was extinguished, but the engine was knocked out of commission. But instead of turning back, the pilot decided to continue on to England, 5,000 miles away.
"We just decided we want to set off on our flight plan route and get as far as we can," the pilot told the air traffic controllers. "So we'd like clearance to continue as planned."
"The tower controller, who had seen the fire, asked the departure controller, 'Is he going?' " said Scott McCartney, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal who covered the story. "And he said, 'Yes, he's going,' and then a bit later he said, 'If you saw what we saw you would be amazed by that.' "
Plane Flies Despite Engine Failure Watch Video
U.S. regulations are very clear about what a pilot should do if an engine goes out.
"If you lose one engine you land at the nearest suitable airport," said John Nance, an ABC News aviation consultant, "and you could lose your license."
But British regulations allow the pilot to decide if it's safe to go on. The pilot consulted with British Airways officials in England. They decided to keep flying.
The incident raised questions about whether the decision involving flight 268 was influenced by economic factors. After all, dumping fuel to return to Los Angeles International Airport and compensating passengers could have cost more than $300,000.
British Airways said economics played no role.
"The Air Accident Safety Investigation Board, Britain's version of the NTSB, found that the aircraft had sufficient fuel and performance to continue the flight safely," the airline said.
Flight 268 did make it to England, although the plane landed in Manchester, not London, because it was running low on fuel.
A year and a half later, questions remain: Did the airline put the passengers and crew at risk?
"That's what happened here," Nance told ABC News. "They reduced the margins of safety. And some statement was made by somebody in Britain that well, it's almost an infinitesimal possibility that they might lose another engine. … That just isn't an operable statement."
The case was not isolated. The Wall Street Journal reported that a total of 15 British Airways 747s in the last five years have lost one engine and kept going to their destination.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 11-02-2011 at 05:37 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
