[This poster has been suspended.]
[This poster has been suspended.]
[This poster has been suspended.]
[This poster has been suspended.]
[This poster has been suspended.]
[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]
[This poster has been suspended.]
---------
Anyone remember the British Airlines [BA] B777 crash at Gatwick a year prior to this accident?
The B777 Aircraft had departed China [Beijing?] and flown one of the coldest routes ever… but flight data confirmed the flight crew made appropriate adjustments and met the intent of the flight manual for these conditions. Copilot was flying the approach, pilot acting as copilot; when the engines failed to respond to ‘throttle-up’ command the aircraft crashed short on the grassy threshold [also, no loss of life].
The subsequent BA, Rolls Royce, Boeing and British Air Investigation folks began to immediately question and crucify the crew for inappropriate actions… especially pilot not taking controls at the last second and mismanagement of airframe temperature [hence extreme cold fuel temperature] in flight, … etc. This underhanded treatment, thru direct comments and innuendo before the facts were in, destroyed the reputations of the traumatized pilots and killed their careers. Crews even refused to fly with them.
When the investigation was completed, it was discovered that Rolls Royce design and certification of their B777 system for cold weather operations failed to identify the threat of freezing fuel in the condition experienced by this crew. When a slow extremely-cold fuel flow [engine idle] was suddenly ‘accelerated’ due to thrust demands, the ‘venturi-effect’ thru the fuel inlets created a low-pressure zone that also reduced the fuel temperature instantly. At this point the jet-fuel froze [moisture and fuel ice] at the pump inlets blocking them and flaming-out the engines. Compounding the problem was questionable Chinese fuel which may, or may-not, have met the rigorous requirements for extreme low temperature operations [-70F]… IE may not have complied with requirement to be virtually moisture free.
When the Airbus A320 ditched in the Hudson, there was another ‘rush-to-judgment’ by airline, engine, FAA and NTSB authorities that was aimed squarely at the traumatized crew, Sully and copilot(?).
The two BA pilots from the B777 immediately contacted ALPA and explained in excruciating detail how they were beaten-up, publicly and privately [innuendo, etc] for their accident… and how after it was all over, and the real cause defined, and their cockpit actions were exonerated as ‘professional crew airmanship/coordination’, a simple grudging/non-apology was issued clearing them of all negligence… but their reputations were already stained forever. The BA crew strongly recommended ALPA stand firmly behind the A320 crew as making the best possible judgment in the few seconds they had to respond to the crisis… over the hostile landscape of NY City. Also, In the A320 event, it became evident, after deep inspection of both bird-damaged engines, that there was truly no hope for a successful divert to a nearby runway. This was proven in several simulations with the true/realistic engine condition was added to the sim scenario… not the imagined scenario used initially that one engine was still producing good-enough thrust for a divert.
In both cases, these crews faced the inevitable hostile/cold inquiries when ‘something went wrong that shouldn’t have gone wrong’… and manufacturer’s [engine/airframe] and airlines reputations are up for critical/public examination. As a former USAF mishap investigator, I can understand how the NTSB guys undoubtedly/unintentionally ‘fed’ the engine, airframe and airlines investigators with confidential speculation, that later proved wrong based on the cold-hard facts.