Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LOT Polish Airlines flight LO 016 EWR-WAW Emergency Landing

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

  • Spectator said..

    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.
    Now, the only flying time I've got is 18 hours in a Piper Cherokee so I 'aint no pilot by any means !!

    So....

    You're on the ground, aircraft on jacks, and you say "Let's reset this breaker and see what happens.....FIRE ?.....Where ?.....SHIT !!, quick, hit the extinguishers and get out and call the fire service"

    Now transpose that sequence to 35,000 feet with a cabin full of passengers !! The last bit would now read .... "FIRE ?.....Where ?.....SHIT !!, quick, hit the extinguishers and get out and call the fire service.....OH !!!.....BOLLOCKS...how high did you say ? !!!"
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

    Comment


    • Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
      You're on the ground, aircraft on jacks, and you say "Let's reset this breaker and see what happens.....FIRE ?.....Where ?.....SHIT !!, quick, hit the extinguishers and get out and call the fire service"

      Now transpose that sequence to 35,000 feet with a cabin full of passengers !! The last bit would now read .... "FIRE ?.....Where ?.....SHIT !!, quick, hit the extinguishers and get out and call the fire service.....OH !!!.....BOLLOCKS...how high did you say ? !!!"
      You are over-reacting a bit (or more than a bit)

      But first, let me acknowledge that more than one fatal accident happened due to over-troubleshooting. Of course there was some trouble first that could be regarded as the "root" cause, but over-troubleshooting was (likely) a "required" link in the chain of events for the accident to happen.

      Two of them that I remember out of my head:

      A plane (sorry, don't remember type, airline or other details) had a problem with a lavatory pump or something like that. The corresponding CB triggered and they reset it. It triggered again and they reset it again, and so on several times. The end result, there was a fire in the lavatory which the cabin crew fought without success. The plane landed "safely" but a good load of passengers died of toxic fumes inhalation.

      The other one, the famous Air Alaska MD-80 with the jammed elevator trim. They overshot over and over, repeatedly re-connecting the AP, using the trim switches, trying the alternated trim motor, and even trying to turn the wheel by hand, over and over, until they managed first to loosen the nut and make the stabilizer slide on the jack-screw until it reached the mechanical stop, and then (after more troubleshooting) break the stop that was preventing the stabilizer from over-travelling. That was the end.

      After the lessons learned in these accidents, there is a general consensus that the "best practice" is to troubleshoot and follow each item of the abnormal procedures ONCE, except if the manual says that you insist. If it doesn't work, then move to the next item. If none of the items worked, then don't start again unless the manual says so, and accept that you've lost that system and plan to deal with that failure.

      So, returning to this case, the first to know if that CB was mentioned in the corresponding abnormal procedure. I don't know.

      But even then, they were not in an imminent emergency. They had plenty of time to deal with the problem.

      Here you have alternate CVR recording other than the one you proposed:

      - Hey, Joe, look, that CB has tripped. You've checked it during the cockpit preparation checklist when I was doing the walk around, right?
      - Hmmm, wellll, maybe, I mean, I did the checklist, but right now I could not ensure that that particular CB was Ok.
      - Ok. Operations, could you please check with maintenance if they have been working with this CB and if they ensured that it was in after the job was done?
      - LOT, I will check, but this will take a while.
      - Ok, we have all the Atlantic ocean ahead.
      (half an hour later)
      - LOT, operations here. Yes, they have been working, and I've actually talked to the mechanic that did it. He had to pull the CB for a check, and he actually can't remember if he rest it. Actually, he looked very concerned that he might have not done it.
      - Ok operations. Our manuals don't say to reset this CB in a case like this. In fact, this CT is not even mentioned in the hydraulics failure procedure. Could you check with engineering whether it would be ok to reset it?
      - Ok, hold on. Engineering is right here with me and they are looking. They say it should be Ok, but they are calling our Boeing representative to confirm. I'll come back in a while.
      (an hour later)
      - LOT. Boeing says that it should be Ok. This circuit carries a too low load. The only way that it could be dangerous is that there was some fault in the electric circuit so as a wire of another circuit taking a high power got connected to this one, which is very unlikely to begin with and then if it had happened then you wouldn't be able to reset the CB anyway because it would trip itself again at once. They suggest that you try once, and if it doesn't stay or trips again, leave it alone and move forward.
      - Thanks operations. Tower, mayday mayday mayday. This is LOT. We have an hydraulics problem and we are not able to lower the landing gear. We are going to circle to prepare the cabin for an emergency landing and to burn most of the fuel so we land as light as possible. Please prepare the emergency equipment for a gear-up landing. We have found a faulty CB that could be related to the problem, but we fear that resetting it could start a fire, so are we going to try it only on final at about one minute from touchdown and we are going to land in that attempt regardless of whether it worked or not. For all the practical purposes, please treat us like a gear-up landing.
      - Ok, please keep us advised.
      - Landing checklist please
      Cabin: secured
      Signs: On
      Landing gear: postpone that item
      Flaps: Set
      Speedbrakes: Armed
      Ok, we only have the landing gear left.
      - Ok we are at 1000ft. Reset the breaker.
      - Done. It stays.
      - Ok, alternate gear extension.
      - Alternate gear extension.
      (Mechanical noise. Noise of wind changes)
      - Three green. Landing checklist complete.
      - Tower, we have three green. We are doing a normal landing. (because, after the fact, we know this is what would have happened)

      For me the real concern in the "human factors" part of the incident is not that they didn't reset the CB. It is that they failed to note the tripped CB, which most likely means that they failed to check the CBs.

      If they had found the tripped CB and had discussed the situation and judged more dangerous to reset it than to attempt a gear-up landing, I would not judge them. But they didn't and I do.

      --- 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 Gabriel View Post
        For me the real concern in the "human factors" part of the incident is not that they didn't reset the CB. It is that they failed to note the tripped CB, which most likely means that they failed to check the CBs.

        If they had found the tripped CB and had discussed the situation and judged more dangerous to reset it than to attempt a gear-up landing, I would not judge them. But they didn't and I do.
        I can understand the crew not knowing the aircraft systems well enough to check the breakers (they were working a hydraulics problem), but I can't understand maintenance not suggesting this. I'm no airline pilot, but my troubleshooting 101 tells me to start at the problem and work back upstream. You're going to get to that breaker pretty quick I think. Even if it tripped due to a short after a few seconds, a few seconds might be all you need to release the uplocks. I'm not sure that the crew could reach it on short final though, and I doubt you want to be up and moving around at that point. On the other hand, you want wheels...

        Comment


        • All those are our guesses, we really don't know what happened because we don't have the black box recordings yet. And we will soon because FAA is involved. This will be a public report and unlike the military wont be a secret because the whole world was watching this landing and people will want to know. LOT crew had direct contact with mechanics so they had over an hour to go through all the check lists three times. We will know soon!!

          Comment


          • Given the fact nothing happened on the ground with the breaker when it was reset (other than it doing what it was supposed to do) I lean toward the theory that someone's bag strap caught it and pulled it open. The flight crew, knowing they had a problem with the hydraulics, was maybe so focused on that problem that they were unable to consider additional issues, I also suppose it should have been the job of the maintenance people on the ground to go deeper in the troubleshooting. If they had found the breaker issue while still airborne, would the decision have been made to attempt reset or not take the chance of a downstream problem and scrape the belly anyway? Looks like the holes in the swiss cheese all aligned. Fortunately, only the airplane died.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
              LOT crew had direct contact with mechanics so they had over an hour to go through all the check lists three times.
              Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but this just doesn't seem so difficult.

              - You have a hydraulics problem. It can't be fixed in flight. You realize that you've lost the gear extension. No big deal, you just have to do the alternate extension when you get to the other side. You continue the flight

              - When it comes time to lower the gear, the alternate extension has no effect. What's up?

              a) the electrically actuated uplocks have failed.

              b) the uplocks are jammed in some way, all of them at the same time.

              c) something else is physically preventing the gear from transiting. All the gear at the same time.

              d) there is a disturbance in the Earth's gravitational field.

              - You rule out (d) fairly quickly. You find (b) and (c) extraordinarily unlikely. Your prime suspect is the uplocks.

              - Your most obvious place to start is the electrical circuits. You bring up the schematics on those circuits. Oh look, fusible links! Let's check those first. Guys, there's one right next to you, on the P6 panel, can you please check that?

              - Blown! Why? Could be dangerous to restore power. Is definitely dangerous to sled down the runway. Ok, we restore the circuit, drop the gear, and pull the breaker again. 1-2-3.

              - Done, 55 minutes to spare.

              That's how simple it seems to me, so I MUST be missing something here.

              Comment


              • Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the landing and the EU regulations state that a final report should be submitted within a year of the incident. There is of course a back door and if you can not make the report public, at least an interim statement should be issued, so the statement was made public today almost at high noon (eleven o'clock local time to be precise).
                Not much new, but here it is: http://www.transport.gov.pl/files/0/...1B767SPLPC.pdf

                Comment


                • all quiet

                  I was on that flight and was talking with a fellow passenger a few weeks ago. he received a letter effectively saying they were suspending the criminal investigation due to the fact that the full incident investigation was not complete.

                  I personally am surprised to have not heard a single word from anyone related to this event, from the moment I left the terminal late that evening. I even flew my return leg of my trip with LOT but didn't get any recognition...not that I needed any, but I've had more of a fuss made over a missed or delayed flight than in this case, but then again, the pilot did land us safely and for that I and my family are grateful.

                  Comment


                  • One year today, this was a superb emergency landing by the LOT crew. As to a report all of us Poles know that they are trying to cover this thing up some way. Either way Poland will have to give us a final report soon or later. All truth comes to light one way or another.

                    Comment


                    • Not another conspiracy theory, please!

                      --- 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


                      • Happy to be alive...

                        It's one year today since I sent that terrifying text message to my wife that we were about to make an emergency landing in Warsaw and that I hoped I would be able to call her if we landed safely.

                        I will say that I am glad the pilot had the skill and presence of mind to bring that aircraft down on it's belly as smoothly as he did, and got all us passengers safely to the ground.

                        To all my fellow survivors: it's a good day to be alive!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by jpmagero View Post
                          It's one year today since I sent that terrifying text message to my wife that we were about to make an emergency landing in Warsaw and that I hoped I would be able to call her if we landed safely.

                          I will say that I am glad the pilot had the skill and presence of mind to bring that aircraft down on it's belly as smoothly as he did, and got all us passengers safely to the ground.

                          To all my fellow survivors: it's a good day to be alive!
                          I'm sorry to spoil your emotional comment, but everybody walking off the plane is the typical outcome of partial and total gear-up landings.

                          In fact, I don't remember one single event (but others will prove me wrong) where that was not the case, except maybe for a person injured/killed by a prop blade torn off the engine (but that would be in a prop plane) and some relatively minor injuries during evacuation.

                          That said, of course you are entitled your feelings that, by the way, maybe I would share had I gone through that situation myself.

                          --- 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


                          • too emotional?

                            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            I'm sorry to spoil your emotional comment, but everybody walking off the plane is the typical outcome of partial and total gear-up landings.

                            ...maybe I would share had I gone through that situation myself.
                            After writing a full reply to this, I decided to delete it and leave the matter alone.

                            All I will say is that while that may be the typical outcome (I don't know either way), it didn't change my feeling having gone into it not knowing what was going to happen (pilot never told us what the emergency was). If that's too emotional a response for this kind of forum, then I'll leave it at that, have a nice day.
                            Last edited by jpmagero; 2012-11-01, 19:13. Reason: did not want to start a whole back and forth debathing the "emotions" of surviving an emergency landing.

                            Comment


                            • Jpmagero,

                              First of all, I want to apologize for my poor choice of words. What I tried to say with the "not spoiling your emotional comment" part was in fact that I don't disturb your emotions or feelings. That's why I've said that I might share your feelings if I had gone through that situation too.

                              It's obvious that I wasn't very nice with you and that you got angry for that. Again, that was not my intention and I hope you forgive me. And please, keep posting about your feelings anytime you want. Even if I thought that "it's a too emotional feeling for this forum" (which, again, it's absolutely not the case), there's no reason for you to quit posting whatever you want. If I'm a jerk, that's my fault, not yours.

                              If you accept my apology, we could move on to the "technical" part (design rules, risks involved in these landings, the effect of the ability of the crew, previous cases, etc.)

                              --- 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


                              • no worries

                                Gabriel - thanks. I took it the wrong way then...cheers.

                                In terms of the technical aspects, your comment prompted me to do some searches on belly landings and I did not turn up that many, and on a recent discover channel "10 scariest landings" (of which this one was number 5...though I thought others, including the JetBlue was scarier personally), the comment was that full landing gear failure is virtually unheard of and never trained for.

                                That being said, my non-pilot brain says I'd rather land like that (on its belly) than with a single set of wheels down...seems like that has a higher risk of damage.

                                I'm also curious to know if these CBs are part of any checklist (maintenance, pre-flight, etc)? Is there any possibility that the CB had been open for a while, but only became an issue once the hydraulic failure occurred?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X