Air Accident / Incident thread

lintdrummer · 06-02-2021 2:36am

mr.anonymous wrote: »

The comment says English would be necessary to achieve the aim of Annex 13 by making the reports more accessible to the wider industry. It's not required.

Imo, many of the accidents in the developing world where reports aren't published in English are so avoidable they'd be unlikely to happen in EU, North America etc that the report wouldn't add much insight to an already safe system.

Does AvHerald's owner really have a boards.ie account?!

While you're probably right, I think no amount of information on accident causation is too much in this industry. There are always lessons to be learned and I agree with Simon that an English language report should be mandated alongside the local language.

Hotblack Desiato · 06-02-2021 4:36am

Even if the lesson is just "Don't fly on Airline X"... although if they're banned from flying into the EU that's generally not a good sign!

smurfjed · 06-02-2021 5:22am

Does AvHerald's owner really have a boards.ie account?!

Simon has posted here many times, hence the reason that I made my original comment. His site is the #1 go to for aviation incidents as it has amazing resources.

I agree with Simon that an English language report should be mandated alongside the local language.

again English isn’t the only ICAO language, so they would have to mandate that all reports were published in each of the official languages. Could you imagine the Irish AIB issuing a report about an ultralight accident and then having to have it translated into 6 languages within the official timeframe.

lintdrummer · 07-02-2021 12:29am

smurfjed wrote: »

again English isn’t the only ICAO language, so they would have to mandate that all reports were published in each of the official languages. Could you imagine the Irish AIB issuing a report about an ultralight accident and then having to have it translated into 6 languages within the official timeframe.

That's just not accurate. English is the de facto language of aviation. Any aviation professional involved in international operations is required to demonstrate a defined level of English language proficiency per the Chicago convention. They are not required to demonstrate proficiency in any other ICAO language.
Therefore, English is the "top tier" language in the industry and it's not unreasonable to expect incident and accident reports to be available in that language.
The point is that any professional in the industry must have a certain level of English proficiency, regardless of whether their mother tongue is another ICAO language. Therefore a report in English would be useful to anyone in the industry.

smurfjed · 07-02-2021 5:28am

A38-8: Proficiency in the English language used for radiotelephony communications
Whereas to prevent accidents, ICAO introduced language provisions to ensure that air traffic personnel and pilots are proficient in conducting and comprehending radiotelephony communications in the English language, including requirements that the English language shall be available on request at all stations on the ground serving designated airports and routes used by international air services;

Have you ever flown into Paris? The above resolution stipulates that they must be able to communicate with aircraft in English, it doesn’t mandate that all communications are in English.

lintdrummer · 07-02-2021 2:14pm

smurfjed wrote: »

Have you ever flown into Paris? The above resolution stipulates that they must be able to communicate with aircraft in English, it doesn’t mandate that all communications are in English.

Yes, I've flown into most major airports in Europe. I'm not sure what your point is?
I didn't suggest that all communications must be in English, rather that anybody involved in international aviation must have the ability to speak and understand English. It is the baseline on which we guarantee an ability to communicate with each other no matter where we are on the planet, why shouldn't that be extended to incident reporting?
The reality is that I have communicated with people of all nationalities through English. Whether that be red caps, aircraft cleaners, fuelers... they generally speak English. Not to mention ATCOs all speak English to level 6 proficiency.

AnRothar · 07-02-2021 2:48pm

lintdrummer wrote: »

Yes, I've flown into most major airports in Europe. I'm not sure what your point is?
I didn't suggest that all communications must be in English, rather that anybody involved in international aviation must have the ability to speak and understand English. It is the baseline on which we guarantee an ability to communicate with each other no matter where we are on the planet, why shouldn't that be extended to incident reporting?
The reality is that I have communicated with people of all nationalities through English. Whether that be red caps, aircraft cleaners, fuelers... they generally speak English. Not to mention ATCOs all speak English to level 6 proficiency.

ATCO' need a min of Level 4, not all have level 6, level 5 is a lot more common than you think😁.
Level 6 also has to be renewed, it no longer is unlimited.

Aviation English is not "Irish" English (or whatever the local flavour is). This is a frequent misunderstanding by "native english" speakers.

billy few mates · 08-02-2021 11:03am

lintdrummer wrote: »

That's just not accurate. English is the de facto language of aviation. Any aviation professional involved in international operations is required to demonstrate a defined level of English language proficiency per the Chicago convention. They are not required to demonstrate proficiency in any other ICAO language.
Therefore, English is the "top tier" language in the industry and it's not unreasonable to expect incident and accident reports to be available in that language.
The point is that any professional in the industry must have a certain level of English proficiency, regardless of whether their mother tongue is another ICAO language. Therefore a report in English would be useful to anyone in the industry.

There's no requirement for every (or any) air accident report to be published in English under the terms of Annex 13.
Section 4.4.1 states that the report should be in 'plain' language (presumably as opposed to plane language

, and section 4.4.2 just calls for it to be written in "one of the working languages" taking into account the language (s) of the recipients.
No mention of English although it is one of the ICAO working languages along with Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish.
The Manual of Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation also reflects this.

mr.anonymous · 08-02-2021 12:30pm

There might also be a distinction between ICAO documents being written in those languages and English being the "operating" language for the industry?

lintdrummer · 08-02-2021 2:46pm

billy few mates wrote: »

There's no requirement for every (or any) air accident report to be published in English under the terms of Annex 13.
Section 4.4.1 states that the report should be in 'plain' language (presumably as opposed to plane language , and section 4.4.2 just calls for it to be written in "one of the working languages" taking into account the language (s) of the recipients.
No mention of English although it is one of the ICAO working languages along with Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish.
The Manual of Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation also reflects this.

That's the point of the discussion Billy. I'm saying that I agree with Simon Hradecky that it should be mandated that reports be published in English alongside the local language. They would then be accessible to the majority of the international aviation community.
I don't think anybody has stated that it is a requirement currently, clearly that's not the case.

JohnC. · 20-02-2021 11:19pm

Just having a normal day

https://twitter.com/michaelagiulia/status/1363241125495136267

Nijmegen · 21-02-2021 1:22am

Plenty of video on the ground also.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/20/22293208/united-airlines-ua328-denver-engine-failure

joujoujou · 21-02-2021 9:05am

https://twitter.com/BroomfieldPD/status/1363229479141785606

https://twitter.com/lloock/status/1363235651634802689

Edit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_qbBZ2kVlM

Inquitus · 21-02-2021 8:56pm

Are we starting to see a pattern of both poor Boeing design, the 737 Max debacle as one of a few examples, along with the 787 battery issues, coupled with issues raised about quality control at the South Carolina plant, parts mysteriously finding their way from the quarantine bin for out of spec parts into completed aircraft on the line. Are these continued issues manifesting themselves in what seems to be an unacceptable level of inflight minor emergencies.

EchoIndia · 21-02-2021 9:04pm

Inquitus wrote: »

Are we starting to see a pattern of both poor Boeing design, the 737 Max debacle as one of a few examples, along with the 787 battery issues, coupled with issues raised about quality control at the South Carolina plant, parts mysteriously finding their way from the quarantine bin for out of spec parts into completed aircraft on the line. Are these continued issues manifesting themselves in what seems to be an unacceptable level of inflight minor emergencies.

Pratt and Whitney make the engines on that 777 and it was delivered in 1995, so it's a long time since it saw the inside of the Boeing factory.

Roger_007 · 21-02-2021 9:12pm

EchoIndia wrote: »

Pratt and Whitney make the engines on that 777 and it was delivered in 1995, so it's a long time since it saw the inside of the Boeing factory.

I assume that it would not still have its original engines. How often are engines renewed/overhauled on aircraft like these?

Irish Steve · 21-02-2021 9:17pm

EchoIndia wrote: »

Pratt and Whitney make the engines on that 777 and it was delivered in 1995, so it's a long time since it saw the inside of the Boeing factory.

And I will hazard a guess that there are some very worried people at both P & W and the FAA right now, as that is a significant failure that the regulators will want answers about very rapidly, due to the quantity of debris that was spread around the place.

Roger_007 · 21-02-2021 10:34pm

Irish Steve wrote: »

And I will hazard a guess that there are some very worried people at both P & W and the FAA right now, as that is a significant failure that the regulators will want answers about very rapidly, due to the quantity of debris that was spread around the place.

I understood that all engines types were tested and certified to ensure that an uncontained engine failure could not occur. Whatever failure happened in this case it certainly was not contained within the engine casing. It’s extremely fortunate that the flying debris did not do fatal damage to the plane or passengers.

Irish Steve · 21-02-2021 11:54pm

Roger_007 wrote: »

I understood that all engines types were tested and certified to ensure that an uncontained engine failure could not occur. Whatever failure happened in this case it certainly was not contained within the engine casing. It’s extremely fortunate that the flying debris did not do fatal damage to the plane or passengers.

And to add fuel to that fire, if you'll excuse the pun, this is not the first incident of this nature with the PW engine, there was a very similar case, also on a 777, in 2018, as a result of a main fan blade failure, and among other things, it did look at though the fan is not complete on the latest case, if this turns out to be another blade failure of a similar type, there will be a significant inquiry, as it appears that the 2 airframes are of a similar age.

The 2018 incident highlighted an issue regarding blade inspections, so I'd hope that given the elapsed time, all the relevant inspections that could have come out of the 2018 incident will have been carried out and reported on.

Adyx · 22-02-2021 12:30am

Irish Steve wrote: »

And to add fuel to that fire, if you'll excuse the pun, this is not the first incident of this nature with the PW engine, there was a very similar case, also on a 777, in 2018, as a result of a main fan blade failure, and among other things, it did look at though the fan is not complete on the latest case, if this turns out to be another blade failure of a similar type, there will be a significant inquiry, as it appears that the 2 airframes are of a similar age.

The 2018 incident highlighted an issue regarding blade inspections, so I'd hope that given the elapsed time, all the relevant inspections that could have come out of the 2018 incident will have been carried out and reported on.

Both United flights to Honolulu and sequential tail numbers too.

RadioRetro · 22-02-2021 1:14am

United have grounded 24 777s with the same series of PW engines.

JohnC. · 22-02-2021 7:38am

RadioRetro wrote: »

United have grounded 24 777s with the same series of PW engines.

The Japanese regulator also ordered JAL and ANA to ground theirs.

Then Boeing told everyone to ground them.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/22/boeing-777-grounded-by-airlines-after-faa-japan-issues-emergency-order

There were 69 in service and 59 in storage.

Initial examinations shows 2 blades fractured.

Nijmegen · 22-02-2021 3:17pm

From the FT (behind a paywall)... This might just be bad timing but:

In a separate incident at the weekend, a Boeing 747 cargo aircraft powered by a smaller version of the engine was forced to turn back after parts of the engine dropped off shortly after take-off from Maastricht in the Netherlands. It is not clear whether the two incidents are related.

Feels like an age related legacy issue in any event, possibly affecting 69 in service aircraft, certainly not another MAX. But bad for the Boeing brand - punters hear "Boeing airplane" rather than "P&W Engine"

0lddog · 22-02-2021 3:37pm

Nijmegen wrote: »

From the FT (behind a paywall)... This might just be bad timing but:....."

747F sprinkling P&W parts around Holland

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyp2rp5wX4Q

Everything cool

4 donks good, 2 donks bad

RadioRetro · 22-02-2021 3:57pm

The British government has banned any 777s with the same PW engines as the United flight from UK airspace.

http://news.sky.com/story/uk-temporarily-bans-boeing-b777s-with-certain-engine-after-two-incidents-12225832

knucklehead6 · 22-02-2021 5:39pm

RadioRetro wrote: »

The British government has banned any 777s with the same PW engines as the United flight from UK airspace.

http://news.sky.com/story/uk-temporarily-bans-boeing-b777s-with-certain-engine-after-two-incidents-12225832

That's a bit of a panic reaction IMO.

Even the headline is sensationalist "more than 230 people were uninjured when blah blah blah"

Nijmegen · 22-02-2021 6:48pm

knucklehead6 wrote: »

That's a bit of a panic reaction IMO.

Even the headline is sensationalist "more than 230 people were uninjured when blah blah blah"

Tbh if the engine does have a tendency to disintegrate it would be just some policymakers luck that a piece of the next one would land on some 99 year old war veteran on his way home from his Covid vaccination if they didn't ban it while the fleet was being looked over.

john boye · 22-02-2021 7:12pm

"More than 230 people were uninjured" is a very sexy way to say nobody was injured.

HTCOne · 22-02-2021 7:15pm

RadioRetro wrote: »

The British government has banned any 777s with the same PW engines as the United flight from UK airspace.

http://news.sky.com/story/uk-temporarily-bans-boeing-b777s-with-certain-engine-after-two-incidents-12225832

Bit pointless after the manufacturer and national regulators of the only airlines operating them already grounded them but hey ho makes them look like they've done something.

Irish Steve · 22-02-2021 11:27pm

Japan had previously banned all of the affected 777's from operating in their airspace, so it's not just the UK that are taking this action.

The ultimate irony of this whole scenario is that the replacement aircraft that operated the flight to Honolulu was the aircraft that had the same type of incident in 2018. I wonder how many people that travelled on it were aware of that snippet of news.

billy few mates · 23-02-2021 1:15am

Roger_007 wrote: »

I assume that it would not still have its original engines. How often are engines renewed/overhauled on aircraft like these?

No, the engines might have been replaced for numerous reasons over the years, often for commercial reasons like managing and planning shop visits by installing them on aircraft tied to longer or shorter flight sectors depending what you're trying to do. They may also be removed and swapped to save leasing costs (if the engines are leased) because you might have to pay a premium once the use of the engine exceeds a certain number of hours or you might be liable for the cost of a shop visit based on this.
Modern engines are not really overhauled the way they were in the old days but they have a number of components (like discs for example) that are called life limiting parts (LLPs) that have to be replaced before they reach their limits but these can all have different limits and thresholds so depending on usage you might have to send it to a shop to replace one LLP and then send it back again a few years later to replace a different LLP. Otherwise they're mostly subject to 'on condition' monitoring.
In theory if you never have any unscheduled maintenance events like a bird strike or FOD and you don't approach the LLP limits you might never have to send the engine to a shop at all though you might have to temporarily remove them from time to time for pylon inspections.
At the same time you could also have the same engine installed over the entire life of the aircraft, and replace all the LLPs as they fall due but it would be like Trigger's brush in the end.

CJhaughey · 26-02-2021 9:42pm

Any more info on the PC-9 that suffered engine failure near Baldonnel?

Hotblack Desiato · 26-02-2021 9:59pm

When was that? They often fly right over my house...

ohlordy · 26-02-2021 10:03pm

Something tells me the notion that it glided for 30km is a bit far fetched, though no doubt it was a bit of a scare for the two onboard

Hotblack Desiato · 26-02-2021 10:06pm

Typical media BS

Power loss is not the same as power failure and I doubt they "glided it in" at any point.

TreeMaker · 27-02-2021 9:55am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Typical media BS

Power loss is not the same as power failure and I doubt they "glided it in" at any point.

The aircraft did indeed glide in

Mr.Crinklewood · 27-02-2021 12:39pm

Was it this plane?

https://twitter.com/realBobbyHealy/status/1365336129550098434/photo/1

Hotblack Desiato · 27-02-2021 1:21pm

TreeMaker wrote: »

The aircraft did indeed glide in

Source?

Eddie Dillon · 27-02-2021 1:33pm

It was a full engine failure and the aircraft glided back with a stationary prop.

xper · 27-02-2021 1:57pm

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Was it this plane?

https://twitter.com/realBobbyHealy/status/1365336129550098434/photo/1

No, that was one of their new PC-12s. Saw it myself circling low several times over Dundrum area at about 4/4:30. Could have been holding on the approach to Baldonnel while they dealt with the emergency or may have been unrelated, cant tell.
The aircraft with the engine problem was a PC-9. The only one that shows up on Flight Radar playback from yesterday afternoon was up over Kildare at well over 10,000 ft heading directly toward Baldonnel before decending and circling a couple of times over the airfield while doing so, if that was the one, they had the luxury of plenty of height to play with. Would not always be the case in their ops.

TreeMaker · 27-02-2021 1:58pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Source?

What makes you doubt the aircraft glided?

Negative_G · 27-02-2021 3:34pm

TreeMaker wrote: »

What makes you doubt the aircraft glided?

Being an armchair quarterback will do that to you.

No analysis of a PC-9 glide ratio, atmospheric conditions.

smurfjed · 27-02-2021 4:38pm

TreeMaker wrote: »

What makes you doubt the aircraft glided?

of course it will glide, that’s what it’s designed to do, however to “glide” 30 kms, he would have to have had a rather high starting altitude and speed.

Storm 10 · 27-02-2021 5:46pm

They were at 16 thousand feet so had the height

27-02-2021 10:35pm

Question mark about engine. Australia source:

http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/raaf-pilatus-pc-9/a-crashes

A Royal Australian Air Force Pilatus PC-9/A trainer crashed yesterday afternoon at RAAF Base East Sale in Victoria after a suspected engine failure.

At approximately 1515 yesterday afternoon RAAF flying instructor Squadron Leader Bruce Collenette, 45, and instructor trainee Flight Lieutenant Steve Andrews, 28, were undertaking a routine training flight when their engine suddenly cut out.

On climb out of the airfield, the aircraft lost power approximately nine kilometres from the airfield and turned back towards East Sale. Power could not be restored to the engine, so the crew followed the engine shutdown procedures checklist. They did not have sufficient glide potential to reach the runway and chose to eject from the aircraft in accordance with well-practiced RAAF emergency response procedures. The aircraft crashed on the edge of RAAF Base East Sale about one kilometre short of one of the runways.

Following a swift search and rescue response by base emergency personnel, both pilots were assessed by medics at the scene as being stable but were kept at hospital overnight for X-rays and precautionary observation. They're both said to be in good spirits, but Flight Lieutenant Andrews has been transferred to Melbourne for further testing and specialist care.

An Aviation Accident Investigation Team is today onsite at RAAF Base East Sale commencing an investigation into the incident.

As a precaution, all RAAF PC-9/A flying operations, including the RAAF Roulettes aerobatic team, have been temporarily suspended while the cause of the incident is investigated.

As was widely reported in the lead-up to the event, the RAAF Roulettes were almost ruled out of performing at the Australian International Airshow at Avalon Airport in early March because of an engine problem that had grounded the entire RAAF PC-9/A fleet in February. They borrowed aircraft from another unit and received approval to perform their aerobatics routine, but this latest incident raises more questions about the PC-9/A engines.

UPDATED – The RAAF has grounded its fleet of Pilatus PC-9/A turboprop trainers after PC-9 A23-039 callsign ‘Aladin 71’ crashed on May 18 at RAAF East Sale after a “suspected engine failure” during a routine training flight.

The accident, which occurred at around 3.15pm, saw the two crew – QFI SQNLDR Bruce Collenette and instructor trainee FLTLT Steve Andrews from Central Flying School – eject safely “about 1 kilometre short of a runway, on the edge of the base”, according to Defence.

“On climb out of the airfield, the aircraft lost power approximately 9 kilometres from the airfield and turned back towards East Sale,” a Defence statement reads.

“Power could not be restored to the engine, so the crew followed the engine shutdown procedures checklist. The crew did not have sufficient glide potential to reach the runway, so ejected from the aircraft in line with standing procedures.”[/quite]

smurfjed · 27-02-2021 10:55pm

Storm 10 wrote: »

They were at 16 thousand feet so had the height

5000 meters in height to 30000 meters in distance ? What is the glide ratio of a PC9?

27-02-2021 11:00pm

smurfjed wrote: »

5000 meters in height to 30000 meters in distance ? What is the glide ratio of a PC9?

Apparently 16:1 glide ratio

Psychlops · 27-02-2021 11:05pm

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Was it this plane?

https://twitter.com/realBobbyHealy/status/1365336129550098434/photo/1

No, that was XRAY280 which is one of the PC12's, FOX261 was the aircraft involved which is a PC9M.

Psychlops · 27-02-2021 11:06pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Question mark about engine. Australia source:

http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/raaf-pilatus-pc-9/a-crashes

UPDATED – The RAAF has grounded its fleet of Pilatus PC-9/A turboprop trainers after PC-9 A23-039 callsign ‘Aladin 71’ crashed on May 18 at RAAF East Sale after a “suspected engine failure” during a routine training flight.

The accident, which occurred at around 3.15pm, saw the two crew – QFI SQNLDR Bruce Collenette and instructor trainee FLTLT Steve Andrews from Central Flying School – eject safely “about 1 kilometre short of a runway, on the edge of the base”, according to Defence.

“On climb out of the airfield, the aircraft lost power approximately 9 kilometres from the airfield and turned back towards East Sale,” a Defence statement reads.

“Power could not be restored to the engine, so the crew followed the engine shutdown procedures checklist. The crew did not have sufficient glide potential to reach the runway, so ejected from the aircraft in line with standing procedures.”[/quite]

Thats from 2011, good find & read, thanks.

billy few mates · 28-02-2021 3:45am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Typical media BS

Power loss is not the same as power failure and I doubt they "glided it in" at any point.

You're going to look a bit thick when you read the final report on what happened...

Air Accident / Incident thread

Comments