![]() |
Originally Posted by oldmako
(Post 2532282)
Just to clear this up, they didn't do a "safe air return". They dove into an emergency ONLY and crappy facility in South American mountains in the middle of the night. I can't recall if it was Manaus, or somewhere else. The plane was then stuck there.
BOG.... ALPA Superior Airmanship Award Late on the evening of April 13, 2004, United Flight 854, Boeing 767-300 service from Buenos Aires, Argentina, to Miami, Fla., was in cruise flight at FL310 over the jungles of southern Colombia, South America. Capt. Brian Witcher and First Officers Donald Arlotta and Ross Windom were the flight crew that night. Capt. Witcher later recalled the flight, up until that moment, as “a normal all-nighter and the last leg of a fiveday trip. With Don, the relief pilot, flying, I was moments away from my rest period.” Suddenly, the autopilot warning horn went off, the cockpit went bright with standby lighting, and the first officer’s panel went blank. In a proficiency checkride, Capt. Witcher had seen a demonstration of what this problem appeared to be—a complete loss of A/C power, with the hydraulic motor generator (HMG) activating to supply power to the captain’s instruments. Capt. Witcher took manual control of the airplane and called for a checklist to deal with the electrical failure. The B-767 was fast approaching the terrain-critical area south of Bogota, Colombia, and Capt. Witcher thought about diverting to Caracas, Venezuela, to avoid the Andes Mountains lurking below in the darkness. Then the pilots realized that their “simple” electrical problem was something else. The overhead electrical panel appeared normal, with no lights on except for the battery discharge light. In fact, the entire overhead panel was normal, with only the autospeedbrake and rudder ratio lights illuminated. The pilots pressed the light-test switch and confirmed that all the lights worked and none of the bulbs were burned out. F/O Windom arrived from the crew rest area. The three pilots discussed the situation and their options. Shortly afterward, Capt. Witcher’s instruments began to fail. The pilots immediately declared an emergency and asked air traffic control for a clearance to Bogota. They tried to establish radio communications with United’s dispatch office, both through HF and satellite radios, without success. The EICAS displays were full of cautions. The pilots soon realized that no checklist existed to cover the situation in which they found themselves. They knew they had a serious electrical problem, but the HMG should kick in and keep the captain’s instruments powered—at least, that’s what the book says. The only radio still working gave up the ghost while the pilots were trying to get vectors from Bogota Center. So much for the book! Capt. Witcher said later, “While I sat there watching my instruments die, I decided to try something, anything, to get some power back. The alternative was a totally black cockpit in about 15 minutes or so and a night landing at Bogota, an airport surrounded by very tall mountains, with all of our electronic navigation and communication equipment useless.” Capt. Witcher reset the generator control circuit breakers. The pilots were surprised when the VHF radio, and Capt. Witcher’s instruments, came to life again. “No problem now,” they thought. “We still have an emergency, but with some electrical power.” Their elation was short-lived: the VHF radio quit again, and Capt. Witcher’s instruments began to fail, while the airplane was still about 200 nautical miles from Bogota. The FAA requires manufacturers to demonstrate that a modern airliner can continue to operate safely for 30 minutes with no electrical power except the juice in the battery. That’s with a new battery, and after the 30 minutes has gone by, it’s anybody’s guess how much longer the battery will provide essential power. The pilots of Flight 854 squeezed 41 minutes from their 30-minute battery because they turned off everything they could, including the outside lights, to conserve battery power. The pilots were very relieved when the landing gear lowered when commanded, because unlocking the gear requires some electrical power. Capt. Witcher reset the generator control circuit breaker three times before they landed safely, but with no clearance from Bogota Tower, because their radios still didn’t work. The pilots landed with less than two volts of battery power left. The airplane was certified for extended twin-engine operations and has redundant electrical generating systems to prevent total loss of both A/C and D/C power. The pilots would not learn until after the flight that a single bracket grounds both transformer rectifier units in the A/ C electrical system. United’s Maintenance Department eventually found that corrosion had caused a short circuit of the grounding bracket and that the HMG did not come on line because it falsely sensed that the airplane had normal A/C power. |
Originally Posted by Bpcrate
(Post 2532359)
Lual I’m sure.
Nice tie. filler |
Originally Posted by Aviatorr
(Post 2532364)
If they’re concearned about hiring then maybe they should start hiring before all the qualified people are elsewhere The other majors are hiring close to 1000 a year and running a little fat while we hire 200 a year, we’ve missed a lot of good people over the last two years.
|
Originally Posted by oldmako
(Post 2532282)
Just to clear this up, they didn't do a "safe air return". They dove into an emergency ONLY and crappy facility in South American mountains in the middle of the night. I can't recall if it was Manaus, or somewhere else. The plane was then stuck there.
|
Originally Posted by oldmako
(Post 2532268)
Probe,
The hard decisions are being made by Captains who are paid to make them. You seem to insinuate that some Captains are buffoons and need to be disciplined, or worse, for taking their responsibility seriously when they refuse an airplane. I find your finger pointing a tad unseemly. Do you know the facts under which such "buffoonery" occurred? Unless you work in the Flight Office I don't expect that you do. And neither do I. I've only seen a Captain refuse a plane one time which I would have taken. And after he explained his reasoning, I agreed with him. I've had to make my opinion very clear on an occasion when I would not accompany a Captain on a flight should he decide to sign for the jet. I guess that was buffoonery on my part and I should be disciplined. I don't second-guess Captains decisions publically and I would appreciate it if they didn't second guess mine on this forum, if I were a Captain. Individuals are what they are. Managements job is to minimize the opportunities for refusals by keeping the parts required to keep the planes MEL free. Years ago during a PC we were presented with a half a dozen or so hypothetical situations and asked, "refuse or take?" We probably came down with a 50 50 split. The Std Capt then gave us one little additional piece of information for each event and our decisions flip-flopped on over half of them. It was an excellent exercise. I did not mean that refusing an airplane amounts to buffoonery. I meant when a small number of individuals do it over and over for 25 years, buffoonery is a much nicer term than I would really like to write here without getting booted off the forum. I had a Dispatcher on my jumpseat for a couple of legs a year or so ago. The Dispatchers know them by name. Unfortunately a lot of them are on our wide body fleets, and have been for a long time. And yes they are predominantly LUAL. I also had the displeasure to fly with a much more recent hire (late 90's) who bid 756 left seat about a year ago. I am sure he is legendary by now in his new base. He was at our base, as an FO. First FO I actually considered throwing out of the cockpit. He was personally responsible for numerous cancellations in only a couple of years. There are lots of reasons to refuse an airplane. I think I have done it twice in 13 years in the left seat. I think only 1 air return. I would bet 90+ percent of us have similar stats. But a small number have much more. They are not worth it to our customers, fellow employees, or the company. Their total "cost" is a tragedy. |
Originally Posted by Probe
(Post 2532634)
James;
I did not mean that refusing an airplane amounts to buffoonery. I meant when a small number of individuals do it over and over for 25 years, buffoonery is a much nicer term than I would really like to write here without getting booted off the forum. I had a Dispatcher on my jumpseat for a couple of legs a year or so ago. The Dispatchers know them by name. Unfortunately a lot of them are on our wide body fleets, and have been for a long time. And yes they are predominantly LUAL. I also had the displeasure to fly with a much more recent hire (late 90's) who bid 756 left seat about a year ago. I am sure he is legendary by now in his new base. He was at our base, as an FO. First FO I actually considered throwing out of the cockpit. He was personally responsible for numerous cancellations in only a couple of years. There are lots of reasons to refuse an airplane. I think I have done it twice in 13 years in the left seat. I think only 1 air return. I would bet 90+ percent of us have similar stats. But a small number have much more. They are not worth it to our customers, fellow employees, or the company. Their total "cost" is a tragedy. |
Really,
Perhaps you're right. I just don't want the fear of turning down a plane to interfere with Captain's authority, and I don't want to see a couple of gung-ho get the mission done guys setting the standards either. Our Air Safety guys posted a list of items which should be ordinarily considered no-go. The instance I referenced was on that list, namely taking a 67 with no APU to deep SA at night. It's all very easy for me to say since I'm an FO, but I made those decisions in a past life at other airlines whose safety culture was worse and where pilot pushing was rampant. I've also volunteered to take the calls when guys thought I was being a tool for having an issue with a plane. (No TCAS departing LAX during the absolute height of the fires about a decade ago. The lower third of the state was MVFR. Amazingly enough, "No Parts" turned into "Parts" just like that) It's not an easy decision, and there's not an easy fix. |
I vaguely remember seeing the list put out by the Air Safety Committee ... Is it still around?
|
There’s no easy fix I’m sure, but I recently had a dispatcher on the jumpseat and the reasons he told us guys were refusing planes were amazing, like no acars for example. I had an fo from Denver to pdx who thought we should refuse the plane because our APU was on MEL, another with apubleed MEL thought we should refuse the plane because of light snow at the airport. I spent 5 years flying a plane with no APU in some pretty sh&t weather. Nobody is asking anyone to risk safety and our company always stresses safety above all else. But Jesus there a reason we carry an MEL
|
Originally Posted by Sunvox
(Post 2532158)
Howard wants to know how to change the United culture on aircraft refusals. Apparently we average 2 per day where as Delta and American have less than that per month. He feels United pilots are too quick to shoot down a plane when conditions are not warranted.
Originally Posted by Sunvox
(Post 2532280)
Howard did say, 10 years ago we had 50 a day, and he admitted there was a period in UAL history when maintenance simply didn't have the resources to keep up
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:50 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands