QF Airborne Emergency

[FlyingPhotog]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=507018&in_page_id=1811

Interesting (and scary) read! :shock:

[tsv]

I don't understand Mr Walsh's comment that if the "airplane had been any further from the airstrip the captain may have had to ditch in the sear". WTF?

The engines are self powered and I'm sure the pilots could find the nearest continent even if they only had a cigarette lighter to work with. These guys are professionals, trained to solve problems. Finding an airport would obviously be harder but I'd back them in to get down safely.

Which instruments would continue to work in this situation? eg would the GPS still be available? And how about the radio?

[z740]

All I can say is YIKES! They are so lucky that it didn't occur farther away from Bangkok. Thank goodness this thread wasn't entitled "QF 747 crash"! That wouldn't be a great way to start a new year.

-Chris

[CcrlR]

I don't understand Mr Walsh's comment that if the "airplane had been any further from the airstrip the captain may have had to ditch in the sear". WTF?

The engines are self powered and I'm sure the pilots could find the nearest continent even if they only had a cigarette lighter to work with. These guys are professionals, trained to solve problems. Finding an airport would obviously be harder but I'd back them in to get down safely.

Which instruments would continue to work in this situation? eg would the GPS still be available? And how about the radio?


Under backup power just the primary flight instruments, the Attitude indicator, Altimeter and airpseed indicator would work plus some more essential equipment needed(including communications). If they don't have GPS, then ATC would have to give them direction where to go.
Usually if they needed backup power then the Ram Air Turbine or the APU would be used in certain emergency situations like when that Air transat A330 landed in the Azores, then they used the Ram Air Turbine for backup power.

[MCM]

CcrlR you are partially right.

There are 4 engine driven generators. They lost the power from all 4, leaving them with power from the back up battery (for 30 mins approx). This battery powers the emergency lighting system, and from a pilots point of view the "Essentials". Captains PFD and ND, one radio, the IRS system, etc. So, you can carry on flight quite safely in this condition. Hard work, but safe. (Using alternate systems etc)

After the 30minutes, thats it.

No more electricity AT ALL.

The 744 does not have a RAT, and the APU is not able to the started in flight.

You are then down to 3 (or 1) instrument... AH, Airspeed Indicator and Altimeter. You also have a Compass (but no lights, so you'd want to get your torch out ;))

You have no navigation or communication ability. You also have no heat for the pitot tubes, so you wouldn't want to be in cloud.

Yes, its serious. Very serious. And it is being treated as such by CASA, Boeing and Qantas.

[Airbus_A320]

Aerospace experts in Australia said today that the pilot was lucky that the failure - caused by water leaking from a galley into the plane's generator control unit - had happened when the plane was close to landing.
Hmm... that isn't good, if this was indeed the cause :nonono:

If they had been a long way from an airport what would the procedures for that be? Also, have there ever been any major ditchings or emergency landings on land other than at an airport?

[Brenden S]

The Electrical bus bar was shorted out.
The Emergency Battery runs off a different Bus.
The APU can be started in flight in a dire emergency, The flight manual and the Maintenance manual states that you cant (due to overspeeding of the apu turbine) but if your in a pickle I would and I would say the flight crew would.
and on the jumbo you have IDG's Intergrated Drive Generators for CF6/PW4000 EDG's for the RR RB211-524

RAT's are only on the Airbus A330 and B767 in the Qantas Fleet, the 737 doesnt have a RAT

[MCM]

No, Brendan, the APU would NOT be started in flight.

In this situation, you wouldn't even try, it would completely drain the battery before it got anywhere near started, putting you in a worse position than when you began.

There is talk around that the Air/Ground logic prevents you from using the electrical power from the APU anyway, making it useless.

Thats if the thing actually started successfully anyway (unlikely due to the airflow design)

Yes, the 767 has a RAT. However, it is a Hydraulic only RAT, and would power flight controls only... no electricity.

[Brenden S]

If memory serves me correct there is a hydraulic driven Generator on the 767 which is powered from the RAT, it has been a while since I have worked on the Jumbo and the 767. The 747 APU can be started on the ground and used up to 30,000ft so there is no logic. As for the battery drain, the APU does not drain that much from the battery on startup, and having the differential pressure the turbine would start spinning rather quickly. It would drain a whole 5-10mins from the battery, either way your pretty stuffed.
There is always bypasses with a aircraft, you just need to know where they lye.

[FlyingPhotog]

Aerospace experts in Australia said today that the pilot was lucky that the failure - caused by water leaking from a galley into the plane's generator control unit - had happened when the plane was close to landing.

When WN first got the 737-500s, there were leaks from the lavatory as well. These leaks somehow caused the brake system to fail on more than one occasion, and couple planes actually hit Jetways because the pilots couldn't stop them.

[ptbodale]

Water and lav leaks are fairly common in all acft due to the amount of vibration. Also electrical failure, while not common does occur.

The comments from Julian Walsh were stupid. A man in that position saying what he did!

The acft was not in danger of falling out of the sky.

[MCM]

The APU is certified for use inflight upto 20,000ft for AIR only.

Use of electrics is prohibited inflight, and there is some talk that it is in fact inhibited and cannot be used. Its interesting that in this case, even if the APU was started and the electrics COULD have been used, it would have made no difference anyway (as the GCU's are located in a similar location I believe).

I'm sure you are aware that the requirements for starting an engine vs running an engine are very different. I think there is real doubt that you would get the required airflow through the APU to successfully start it. The original 747's had an inlet door that was pushed into the airflow (like 767) and so could be used in flight. This was removed, and then the inflight start prohibited.

As for the 767, there is a Hydraulic driven generator, however when the RAT is deployed, parts of the HYD system are isolated, and the generator is NOT driven. It is able to power the flight controls only... no electrics.

Dale, can you tell me of an occasion a heavy transport aircraft has flown with no electrics at all to a successful landing?

[Jet-fighters.Net]

Looks like the cracked drip pan that allowed the short to happen has been found in 6 more QF 747's

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/11/220774/qantas-finds-more-problems-in-747-400s-report.html

Looks like a lot of 747 operators will be making some checks and repairs quite quickly.

[tsv]

Hmm... that isn't good, if this was indeed the cause :nonono:

If they had been a long way from an airport what would the procedures for that be? Also, have there ever been any major ditchings or emergency landings on land other than at an airport?


I'm also interested in what the procedures would be.

Any comments on the following suggestions?

1. Scramble a fighter (with a tanker to refuel if necessary) and get it to escort the 747 home.
2. Get a 747 pilot in the tower asap to assist (I'm sure they would have a satellite phone installed somewhere in the case that no radio was available - otherwise one of the crew or passengers should have one). The 747 should be visible on radar so the tower should be able to guide it home without difficulty.

If the hydraulics function normally I can't see why a safe landing couldn't be made once the runway was located. But I'm sure there are other issues our experts can explain :)

[CcrlR]

I'm also interested in what the procedures would be.

Any comments on the following suggestions?

1. Scramble a fighter (with a tanker to refuel if necessary) and get it to escort the 747 home.
2. Get a 747 pilot in the tower asap to assist (I'm sure they would have a satellite phone installed somewhere in the case that no radio was available - otherwise one of the crew or passengers should have one). The 747 should be visible on radar so the tower should be able to guide it home without difficulty.

If the hydraulics function normally I can't see why a safe landing couldn't be made once the runway was located. But I'm sure there are other issues our experts can explain :)


1. They usually send pairs of fighter jets to intercept an aircraft.

2. Get techs for the 747's too and any other necessary personel. The radar should pick up the plane regardless if its transponder is working or not. It has happened several times before with other air emergencies when the transponder was not in use or operating.

The plan should depend on where the plane is and how far it is from the nearest airport(and the emergency procedures the airport can handle). Just like if it was a 2 engined aircraft in which ETOPS would be in use then it depends on the nearest airport and other issues with the emergency. If it was a water landing, then it would be a whole different plan.

[MCM]

1) Scramble a Fighter - Good idea, if the exact location of the aircraft is known, and it is within range. Not much good if you are half way across the ocean 5 hours from the nearest runway. Certainly an option. Certainly something you would be asking for if possible.

2) Techs in the tower is not much good when you have NO COMMUNICATIONS which really is the problem in all this situation. Yes, 747's often have Satphones... but they require electricity to run them. Mobile Phones don't tend to work half way across the pacific either.

As to visible on the radar... fine if you are within primary radar range. But if they can't communicate to the aircraft....

All of these plans people are coming up with are good ones, provided you have power or communications... and it is the lack of this that is the problem!

You certainly have options, and you would be investigating every one of them to hopefully find a nice dry long bit of concrete to land on. But it would be hard work.

[z740]

How about getting the fighters to guide the 747 to a nearby airport as the fighters will most likely have GPS, radar and a way to contact tower. The only problem is that the pilots of the 747 need to know that the fighters will guide them to an airport.

-Chris

[Crunk415balla]

Scary stuff! Good thing it wasn't in the middle of nowhere.

[CcrlR]

How about getting the fighters to guide the 747 to a nearby airport as the fighters will most likely have GPS, radar and a way to contact tower. The only problem is that the pilots of the 747 need to know that the fighters will guide them to an airport.

-Chris

They should have a procedure for intercept and follow. It might be the same thing as flying into a TFR or ADIZ(Washington DC airspace) and the fighter jets intercept you and you have to follow them to land.

[MCM]

There are indeed procedures.

Assuming that the intercepting aircraft are aware of your situation, and know what you want to do.

[Dmmoore]

Unless QF has done something very different from the rest of the world, the APU can se started and used below 20,000 feet, it will provide stable power. The APU battery is from the main ships battery. The APU generators do not use GCU's they use BPCU's (Bus Power Control Units) The APU controls the generators speed. However the BPCU's could have been affected by the leak.
"IF" the A/C were farther out and emergency power to landing was critical, I'd try the APU.

[aussiepax]

Update

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23241671-5001028,00.html

QANTAS has a safety problem with 14 of its Boeing 747 "jumbo jets", an Australian Transport Safety Bureau review has found.

The airline inspected 30 of its 747s following electrical problems on a flight from London to Bangkok.

The aircraft was carrying 346 passengers and 19 crew and was flying at about 21,000 feet (6400m) on descent in to Bangkok when the customer service manager notified the flight crew that a substantial water leak had occurred in the forward galley.

Cockpit indications showed a number of electrical failures over the next 12 to 13 minutes.

Qantas subsequently found problems with 14 of its 747s, the safety bureau said today in its first report into the incident.

The flying kangaroo "carried out a fleet inspection of 747-400 drip shields and made temporary repairs of any cracks found during those inspections," the report said.

"The operator identified cracks in the drip shields of 14 out of 30 aircraft inspected."

The bureau also said the incident, which was given wide media coverage, was not as much of a concern as first thought.

"The event was less serious than first reported," it found.

"Post-flight inspections identified a minor water leak in the forward galley sink drain and that an ice drawer drain was blocked.

"That inspection also found cracks in a fibreglass drip shield located above an electrical component rack in the aircraft's main equipment centre, as well as evidence of dark liquid stains on the shield.

"Further inspection found that a ribbon heater on a drain line leading to the forward grey water drain mast was inoperative, and that a length of hose on the drain line at that location was split."

[MCM]

DMMoore, I have read a lot of your posts now and you are clearly very knowledgeable about all sides of aviation (esp the maintenance side).

I'm curious, though, why you say the APU can be started and electrics used inflight. I may well be mistaken, but the information that has so far been disseminated (from those who really should know) is that the APU can NOT provide electrical power in flight as it is inhibited. Boeing have made it quite clear in the flight manual of the 744 that the APU is not to be used for Electrical power in flight, and the APU can be run up to 20,000ft, but cannot be started. Older models were different.


You may well know something that I don't... just curious what it is.