Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LOT Polish Airlines flight LO 016 EWR-WAW Emergency Landing

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

  • #91
    Circuit breakers

    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    So the million dollar question is: when they were troubleshooting this in the air, why didn't someone think to check the breakers on the p6 panel? It only took them 15-20 mins to figure it out on the ground.
    Same questions being asked in the AV Herald comments, and also whether that breaker is on any checklists. Remember it is not directly the landing gear alternate system breaker, but an upstream bus breaker which happens to supply the alt gear as one of its loads, so unless you know the systems well, it does not jump out at you as the breaker to check. Nevertheless, (1) sighting the breaker panel, you would normally notice any popped breaker (surely? see the photo on AV Herald), and (2) they were evidently in contact with the ground crew who should have been able to research the systems if required.

    The next point is risk and policy for resetting a breaker in the air. A breaker normally trips for a reason (unless it is manually pulled - accidentally or intentionally), so resetting it does present a potential fire risk which is not desirable when you are in the air. On the ground it becomes an entirely different consideration - push the breaker and see what happens.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Spectator View Post
      Remember it is not directly the landing gear alternate system breaker, but an upstream bus breaker which happens to supply the alt gear as one of its loads, so unless you know the systems well, it does not jump out at you as the breaker to check.
      I would think, having exhausted the checklists, you then check ALL the breakers. If you can't find the problem where you expect it, you move upstream. That's just basic troubleshooting. Surely pilots and engineers on the ground are not restricted to a checklist mentality.

      The next point is risk and policy for resetting a breaker in the air. A breaker normally trips for a reason (unless it is manually pulled - accidentally or intentionally), so resetting it does present a potential fire risk which is not desirable when you are in the air. On the ground it becomes an entirely different consideration - push the breaker and see what happens.
      Landing with the gear up presents a potential fire risk. Breakers are designed to trip before a fire can develop, so if you reset a breaker and the potential exists, it will just trip again. The circuit only needed to be restored long enough to release the uplocks and drop the gear, so even a momentary reset would have done the trick.

      Until we hear a reasonable explanation for overlooking this, I don't think we can give Capt Wrona any applause.

      Comment


      • #93
        Could someone explain (or show would even be better) where that circuit breaker and the p6 panel are located in the cockpit?

        Comment


        • #94
          If you go to this page http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4456bd6b&opt=0 and scrawl down you will find actual picture from LOT

          Comment


          • #95
            The panel is back right lower corner of the cockpit. The CB in question is right down the bottom of that, but on the left hand side so nearer to the centre of the cockpit.

            The panel is not particularly easy to see unless you get out of the seat and look.

            Comment


            • #96
              Time for a self quote:

              Originally posted by Peter_K View Post
              She will fly again. 3 to 5 months from now.
              I'm rarely wrong but when I am, I'm the first one to admit it. She will not fly again. Never!

              Comment


              • #97
                She will never never fly not even as Cargo, she is to expensive to fix (engines) are the most expensive and the total repair is more then the plane is worth. In one case it's sad but it's safer on the other hand if she wont hit the sky. I did get a chance to be on board that 767 from waw to ord in 2012. And LOT will not get a substitute for SP-LPC, but they will use AeroSovit one thay have on wet leas. LOT will get their 787 this year one is being build as we speak, look at the pictures from Boeing.

                Kilka dni temu, w zakładach Boeinga w Everett, rozpoczął się montaż końcowy pierwszego Dreamlinera dla PLL LOT..

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
                  (...) she is to expensive to fix (...)
                  That's an official excuse. More likely LOT can not afford to have her fixed.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Peter_K View Post
                    That's an official excuse. More likely LOT can not afford to have her fixed.
                    It's probably more a matter of the owner (the airplane was leased) and the insurance company than LOT's.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Peter_K View Post
                      That's an official excuse. More likely LOT can not afford to have her fixed.
                      It's not LOT who fixes her it's the insurance company same as if you have a car accident (as long as you are insured). But the final say has the leasing company not LOT. If you did not know LOT and most airlines don't out right own planes they belong to a leas companies.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
                        It's not LOT who fixes her it's the insurance company same as if you have a car accident (as long as you are insured). But the final say has the leasing company not LOT. If you did not know LOT and most airlines don't out right own planes they belong to a leas companies.
                        But like in the case of a car insurance, you have a deductible which is covered by the owner/operator. It all depends on the wording of the contract with leasing company and insurance which likely is confidential.
                        Of course LOT doesn’t own the aircrafts. In fact they hardly own anything.

                        Comment


                        • In the end I think they will just put it on craigslist.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            In the end I think they will just put it on craigslist.
                            That's not a bad idea after all it will never fly again, or turn it in to a restaurant, But there are rumors going around that Krakow museum will probably buy it. How much truth is in it who knows.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Peter_K View Post
                              But like in the case of a car insurance, you have a deductible which is covered by the owner/operator. It all depends on the wording of the contract with leasing company and insurance which likely is confidential.
                              Of course LOT doesn’t own the aircrafts. In fact they hardly own anything.
                              True that LOT doesn't own any thing but even if they have to pay the deductible it's probably not that big, and knowing LOT they probably pay more for the insurance because they wanted to keep the deductible lower just in case on an accident. I don't know. I hope that the 787 will improve their situation.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
                                That's not a bad idea after all it will never fly again, or turn it in to a restaurant, But there are rumors going around that Krakow museum will probably buy it. How much truth is in it who knows.
                                I bet that this airplane, with damage only in the engines and belly, is stuffed with thousands of parts that are as-good-as-new (or in good used condition) and that have a huge retail value in the spares market, which in turn is most likely the reason why the repair is not economiaclly viable: The residual value of the "scrapped" plane is more than the value of the repaired plane minus the cost of the repair. If the value of the plane in pieces wasn't as high, I don't doubt that a repair would make a lot of sense even in $$$.

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X