Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United 767 Nav Failure?  
User currently offlineavantime From New Zealand, joined Apr 2010, 1 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6700 times:

Just came across this on Avweb:

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/A...bInsider_iPadBailout_207584-1.html

Quote:
Incident one occurred in August on a westbound United Boeing 767 from San Francisco to Hawaii. A pilot-trained passenger happened to notice that three hours out, the airplane made a slow 180-degree turn back toward the west coast. Shortly thereafter, a PA from the flight deck said that the aircraft had lost all navigational capability. The crew had declared an emergency, climbed to 34,500 feet for additional separation and was aiming for California. It eventually was assigned a hard altitude and landed in San Francisco without incident. As far as I know, the incident didn't make it into the news cycle. Our correspondent told us she spoke to the crew, who said they navigated home with a whiskey compass and an iPad…in a multi-million dollar airplane with a half-million dollar glass panel. All the better reason to keep a basic text on your iPad refreshing your memory of northerly compass turning error.


Can anyone here shed some more light on this incident? It looks pretty serious and I can't find any more info about this on the internet.

80 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5659 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6685 times:

A triple IRS failure? Plus a dual GPS failure? Plus a triple VOR failure (when in close to the coast)? Dual ADF failure? Unless they lost all 4 screens and their RDMI's, I just can't see that happening.

The power failure that would cause all those problems would be noticed in the back.

Methinks there was more, or more probably, less to this story.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6664 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 1):

There coud be more to the story but does anybody know what plane it was?? just for Grins I could check the records but it's now November and that would be in long term history from August.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17186 posts, RR: 66
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6603 times:

It's not a complete navigational capabiliy failure if you still have your compass. 


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6574 times:

Three hours out - the plane would be beyond range of VOR or ADF stations.

User currently offlinetb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1652 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6555 times:

Time to reissue sextons and teach pilots how to shoot stars!


Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5659 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6431 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 4):
Three hours out - the plane would be beyond range of VOR or ADF stations.

Yes, but IRS (3ea) & GPS (2ea) are not affected.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6409 times:

3 hrs out? heck they were closer to Hawaii! Yeah I know the continent is bigger.  

User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4783 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6256 times:

Sounds like BS to me.


They may have turned back for all number of reasons but losing all three IRS computers and two GPS receivers is highly unlikely.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently onlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 2473 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6207 times:

Quoting tb727 (Reply 5):

Time to reissue sextons and teach pilots how to shoot stars!

Wasn't that the reason for the 737s eyebrows?  



A landing EVERYONE can walk away from, is a good landing.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5659 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6177 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 9):
Wasn't that the reason for the 737s eyebrows?


The DC8 had a sextant hole. The classic jumbos had a hole that was called the smoke evacuation port but the urban mythology amongst the maintenance folks is that is could also be used to take sightings.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5164 posts, RR: 43
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6158 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
The DC8 had a sextant hole.

Some of our older arctic B737s had a sextant hole, and those "arctic trained" had to use it on check rides. They also had an Astro Compass mount on the F/O's window!

Someone put a vacuum hose in one aircraft. One end would fit through the hole, the other end was used to clean out the cockpit!

Both an Astro Compass and a Sextant would have come in real handy if this B767 really did lose all navigation capability!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6009 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 9):
Wasn't that the reason for the 737s eyebrows?

Nope. No way you could do star shoot from one   They are there because the FAA felt the old Boeing section 41 didn't have very good visibility in the traffic pattern while turning...



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6006 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
It's not a complete navigational capabiliy failure if you still have your compass.

Yikes...wonder if 767 captains and FO's practice compass turns in the sim  Wow!



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinestratosphere From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1658 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5754 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 8):
They may have turned back for all number of reasons but losing all three IRS computers and two GPS receivers is highly unlikely.

Maybe they had something similar to this happen:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...208X05844&ntsbno=NYC96IA116&akey=1



NWA THE TRUE EVIL EMPIRE
User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4783 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5717 times:

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 14):

They may have turned back for all number of reasons but losing all three IRS computers and two GPS receivers is highly unlikely.

Maybe they had something similar to this happen:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...key=1

They may have had any number of problems !


Until any further information is released (if it is) speculation is just that.


My point is, the loss of all navigational aids is highly unlikely.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17186 posts, RR: 66
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5677 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 13):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
It's not a complete navigational capabiliy failure if you still have your compass.

Yikes...wonder if 767 captains and FO's practice compass turns in the sim  


Well, I suppose UNOS and ANDS still apply. 



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSKC From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5541 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 7):
3 hrs out? heck they were closer to Hawaii!

Maybe geographically, but quite possibly not closer when factoring in headwinds. May not have passed their equal time point, thus it was quicker to turn around and head back than to continue.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5539 times:

Yes I know but as a rule it's about 5 hrs from the coast. Flew it last week, flying it again this afternoon.

User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5659 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5537 times:

Quoting avantime (Thread starter):
Can anyone here shed some more light on this incident? It looks pretty serious and I can't find any more info about this on the internet.

I'm a skeptic on this incident. So, I looked at some prints and tried to make 3ea IRS fail and both GPS fail without letting the people in the back know (i.e. dual IDG failure, with a failure of the standby buss) and I can't do it.

I'm calling BS on a story that was designed to make a point about electronics on aircraft.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5514 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 19):
I'm calling BS on a story that was designed to make a point about electronics on aircraft.

I tend to agree with you fr8mech.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31712 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5495 times:

Seems very difficult to believe considering the range of navigation equipment available on the B767.


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5437 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 21):
Seems very difficult to believe considering the range of navigation equipment available on the B767.

I wonder if they still carry an ADF receiver, as NDB's have been decomissioned by the droves here in the US. I realize that NDB's are still pretty common overseas, but even when NDB's were still fairly common in the US, in general aviation planes, if you had a GPS onboard, it was much more convienient and simpler to navigate using GPS overlay, especially when IFR.

If you have an ADF receiver, you can at least home in on a powerful AM radio station...

I know that other long range navigation systems (like Omega/VLF and LORAN) have been supplanted by GPS and GPS alone (well, with IRS as a backup on an airliner).

Once the aircraft was within ~130 miles of the US coast, the navigation system woud have started to pick up VOR/DME (assuming that much was operable...).



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5412 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
The DC8 had a sextant hole.

Sextant in use on a DC-8.

http://www.nicolamarras.it/calcolatoria/nav/dc8-sextant.jpg


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2577 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5404 times:

Quoting SKC (Reply 17):
Maybe geographically, but quite possibly not closer when factoring in headwinds. May not have passed their equal time point, thus it was quicker to turn around and head back than to continue.

Without oceanic navigation ability, the chances of finding Hawaii are remote. However head back to the east and you will certainly find land.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 22):
I wonder if they still carry an ADF receiver, as NDB's have been decomissioned by the droves here in the US.

Not too many NDBs in the Pacific, so it's a moot point. But I'd be surprised if ADFs had been removed.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 19):
I'm a skeptic on this incident. So, I looked at some prints and tried to make 3ea IRS fail and both GPS fail without letting the people in the back know (i.e. dual IDG failure, with a failure of the standby buss) and I can't do it.

What about a loss of power to the EFIS displays, so even if the IRS and GPS were functional they wouldn't be any use to steer by. I remember a 757 that happened to in Europe many years ago, but I forget the cause. They don't like heat, an equipment cooling failure could take them out.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 19):
I'm calling BS on a story that was designed to make a point about electronics on aircraft.

Maybe it was the iPad the report mentioned they navigated with that caused the problems.  



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5164 posts, RR: 43
Reply 25, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5634 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23):
Sextant in use on a DC-8.

That's not a DC-8 .... VC-10 maybe?



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5659 posts, RR: 15
Reply 26, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5665 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 24):
What about a loss of power to the EFIS displays,

I thought about that. In fact, if this is true, it's the most likely scenario. I believe the 4 screens all live on at least 3 different busses. Very unlikely.

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 24):
They don't like heat, an equipment cooling failure could take them out.

Yup, they hate the heat, but in the air, with differential pressure, there should always be airflow across the system. In my opinion, too many failures would have to occur for this to happen. I've yet to see an equipment cooling failure, in the air, that caused a serious problem. On the ground? Yes. Boxes fry.

The more likely failure, in the EFIS system, is CRT failure from condensation. Typically, it's the EADI's that are affected because they sit above the EHSI's. The 767 has had this problem, but I've never heard of all 4 screens failing at the same time. Possible? Yes. Likely? No.

I'm guessing, that if this happened there would have been a service letter from Boeing immediately at warning operators of the potential and what the initial thoughts were.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2577 posts, RR: 25
Reply 27, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5803 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26):
I thought about that. In fact, if this is true, it's the most likely scenario. I believe the 4 screens all live on at least 3 different busses. Very unlikely.

But it has happened to at least one 757. That wasn't over an ocean so radio navigation was still possible. I forget the cause, but it was back when glass cockpits were new so it caused a bit of a stir among glass cockpit sceptics.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4783 posts, RR: 19
Reply 28, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5735 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 24):

What about a loss of power to the EFIS displays, so even if the IRS and GPS were functional they wouldn't be any use to steer by.

As unlikely as that is you would still have a course to steer by referring to the legs page of the FMC computer.


And if ADF is fitted you can steer towards an NDB station using the RMI needles which are on a totally separate electromechanical gauge, if within range of a VOR station you can do the same with the VOR needles.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 29, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5599 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 6):
Yes, but IRS (3ea) & GPS (2ea) are not affected.

While I agree in principle - what about airline SOP.

At which point does United SOP consider the navigation system unreliable. When one IRS disagrees with the other two? When all three disagree on the aircraft position? When one GPS disagrees?

The iPAD part of the story is certainly BS.

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 18):
Yes I know but as a rule it's about 5 hrs from the coast.

If they did have navigation problems, turning back is a better procedure if they have fuel. Missing the Hawaiian Islands would be a major disaster, but it is hard to miss the west coast of North America.

My first US Navy squadron lost an aircraft in Sept 73 which had navigational issues (luckly the crew bailed out over the only ship in the JMSDF with an emparked helicopter at the time) and years later they lost another aircraft, and crew, which 'missed' Guam on a night flight from Japan.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9240 posts, RR: 76
Reply 30, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5621 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 19):
I looked at some prints and tried to make 3ea IRS fail and both GPS fail without letting the people in the back know (i.e. dual IDG failure, with a failure of the standby buss) and I can't do it.

What about the QF 744 incident into BKK ? A fault with the water drain in the galley caused water to go over the avionics, getting rid basically all of the electric busses except for AC4.

All they had left was the left hand side PFD[1] in degraded mode but with attitude, airspeed, altitude, vertical speed and ILS indications, the left hand side ND[2] in degraded mode, the left hand side CDU[3], the upper EICAS display including landing gear indication, all standby instruments, which indicated attitude, airspeed, altitude and the magnetic compass, EPR[4] readings for the No 4 engine only, indications of flap position for the right wing only, a single COM system with less than usual signal strength.

All of the generators were working normally, however with the avionics fault, they could not be used.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5659 posts, RR: 15
Reply 31, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5589 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):

I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm saying that it's highly unlikely. And, it would require multiple failures. And, chances are the folks in the back would know about it.

The OP's link implied that the folks in the back did not know anything was happening until a lone "pilot-trained" passenger noticed a slow 180 deg turn (reminiscent of one of the 70's disaster movies). I suggest that just about anything that causes a complete navigation systems' failure would also have additional effects that would be noticed in the back.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 29):
what about airline SOP

That's a good question. I don't have that answer, but, would you rely on an iPAD and your wet compass or a IRS with no fault light? Even if all 3 IRS's drifted unacceptably, I'll suggest that a half-assed competent pilot could still navigate without having to revert to the wet compass as a primary means.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 32, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5570 times:

Quote:
I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm saying that it's highly unlikely. And, it would require multiple failures. And, chances are the folks in the back would know about it.

The more I think about this, the more I'm inclined to put this into the urban legend category.

Not for any of the valid reasons both against or for the technical possibility of the loss of the instruments - rather "How could the airline keep such an incident quiet?

In today's world of scanners, people posting about diversions frequently, how could they have kept the story down to one blogger with unnamed sources?


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 33, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5582 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
What about the QF 744 incident into BKK ? A fault with the water drain in the galley caused water to go over the avionics, getting rid basically all of the electric busses except for AC4.

Didn't that just take down the AC buses? They would have still had hot battery, capt DC, and standby. That would give you some (though certainly not full) navigation capability. Still much better than the alleged situation here.

Tom.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9240 posts, RR: 76
Reply 34, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5588 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 32):

UA only do 4 flights a day from SFO to HNL, it shuld be easy to check with flight aware to see if the 124 odd flights for teh month made it to HNL. UA73 I think is the more likely flight to get the 767.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 35, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5580 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 32):
Not for any of the valid reasons both against or for the technical possibility of the loss of the instruments - rather "How could the airline keep such an incident quiet?

Seems like such a failure would be reportable to the FAA, NTSB, or both...that's been my thoughts throughout the day. In which case publicly available information can be pulled up....  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5164 posts, RR: 43
Reply 36, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5569 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 35):
Seems like such a failure would be reportable to the FAA, NTSB, or both...that's been my thoughts throughout the day. In which case publicly available information can be pulled up....

Not to mention ... on the inside, this alleged event would be HUGE, and every pilot of every B757/767 would be informed and warned ... and we haven't.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineCOSPN From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5552 times:

I dont think you have to be "pilot-trained" to notice the plane has done a 180 and heading back east...

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9240 posts, RR: 76
Reply 38, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5567 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 36):
Not to mention ... on the inside, this alleged event would be HUGE, and every pilot of every B757/767 would be informed and warned ... and we haven't.

Can I ask then what you were told about the S7 airlines 767 incident in October that had a similar loss of navigation and diverted Venice ?

I suspect you were told nothing....lots of incident occur, and even type rated pilots are not told about them.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17186 posts, RR: 66
Reply 39, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5552 times:

Quoting COSPN (Reply 37):

I dont think you have to be "pilot-trained" to notice the plane has done a 180 and heading back east...

True. However most people would not notice.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently onlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4006 posts, RR: 18
Reply 40, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5558 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 12):
They are there because the FAA felt the old Boeing section 41 didn't have very good visibility in the traffic pattern while turning...

And today it suddenly does?  



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5164 posts, RR: 43
Reply 41, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks ago) and read 5546 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 38):
Can I ask then what you were told about the S7 airlines 767 incident in October that had a similar loss of navigation and diverted Venice ?

I suspect you were told nothing....lots of incident occur, and even type rated pilots are not told about them.

I think it depends on the cause. I don't think the final report is issued yet. (If you mean the one a month ago, how did you hear about it?) There was however another Russian B767 about a year ago that returned to its point of departure due to a "navigation problem", however as details were not published, I am guessing it was not earth shattering nor safety related.

For example, after the A330 mishaps with the Thales pitot tubes, A330 crews here were given daily reports with possible solutions. Then when new procedures were issued by Airbus, all were placed in crew's mail boxes ... as well as emailed, and ... just in case one didn't see either of those, for the first month, crews scheduled to fly the A330 were telephoned at home by the A330/340 Manager of Flying making sure they were aware of new procedures.

I would suspect that if there were an issue with the B767/B757 navigation systems, that could possibly cause a complete loss of all navigation capability it would be huge news.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 42, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5541 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 35):
Seems like such a failure would be reportable to the FAA, NTSB, or both...that's been my thoughts throughout the day.

you bet it would be reported. nav failure in Class II airspace, absolutely.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9240 posts, RR: 76
Reply 43, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5517 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 41):
I don't think the final report is issued yet

For may incidents, there is never any report or investigation issued by the relevant air safety investigators. That is often left to the operator and manufacturer to sort out. We investigate more incidents internally than what our local regulator does.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 41):

I would suspect that if there were an issue with the B767/B757 navigation systems, that could possibly cause a complete loss of all navigation capability it would be huge news.

Not at all.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 41):
For example, after the A330 mishaps with the Thales pitot tubes, A330 crews here were given daily reports with possible solutions. Then when new procedures were issued by Airbus, all were placed in crew's mail boxes ... as well as emailed, and ... just in case one didn't see either of those, for the first month, crews scheduled to fly the A330 were telephoned at home by the A330/340 Manager of Flying making sure they were aware of new procedures

That sounds silly. I am aware of pitot tube blockages on every airliner that is currently flying with the exception of the 787, maybe they just have not encountered the right conditions yet. There would be a dozen or so pitot tube blockages a year on A330s alone worldwide, most of them so minor the crew are not even aware of them, the more significant ones might last 5-10 seconds and may only involve one probe. We regularly have blockages on the A300, A320, A330, A340, 777, and 747, a lot of that come from the environment we are exposed to, being more prone to conditions where are outside the normal icing certification requirements.

In all of our cases, the aircraft kept flying, and landed safely, and in a lot of cases, without the crew even being aware that the pilot tube was obstructed at some stage in flight. AF447 did not crash because the pitot tube was blocked, it crashed because of the way the situation was managed. There was no reason why that aircraft could not have kept going to the destination.

As for promulgation of FCOM updates, we also have them by email, electronic, and hard copy updates, However that is normal for any update, often they come through every week or two.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 44, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5502 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 43):
Quoting longhauler (Reply 41):
I don't think the final report is issued yet

For may incidents, there is never any report or investigation issued by the relevant air safety investigators.

That's true, but there's a huge swath of stuff in between what comes under the purview of the air safety investigators (which requires an actual or near incident) and what has to be reported to the OEM and the regulator.

I know what's on the required reporting list for the FAA (as type cert issuer for the 767, not as the airline regulator)...total nav failure would have to be reported if the OEM knew about it.

Tom.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5164 posts, RR: 43
Reply 45, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5497 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 43):
As for promulgation of FCOM updates, we also have them by email, electronic, and hard copy updates, However that is normal for any update, often they come through every week or two.

I think you missed my point. I am not talking about any mundane "update" where procedures have changed, or responses where changed from CHECK to SET.

I am talking about during an incident investigation be it an official governmental investigation, or an internal airline investigation ... something pops up that can not be explained, or worse, shows a trend. I used the A330 with Thales probes as an example as it was recent. Yes, now we know the cause, and yes now we know what brought down AF447 ... but until the CVR/FDRs were found, we didn't ... and speculation was rampant.

There were several A330/Thales incidents during airline operations that did not become public until the investigation of AF447. As information was spread worldwide, airlines were advised, Airbus revised procedures ... and here, A330 crews were updated daily! We realize now that it may have been "silly" as you state, as it may well have been a red herring, but during the investigation we did not have the luxury of knowing that!

Another excellent example was the B737. When the UA B737 went down at COS, it was "curious" at best. I recall, as I was a B737 F/O at the time. Other than normal cockpit talk and speculation, it wasn't given much thought. Then, 3 years later, I was a B737 Captain, and the US B737 went down in PIT under similar circumstances. Now it became a HUGE issue. One of the safest and most common airframes now was suspected of having an Achilles Heel.

Again, other incidents (there were several) became public, procedures were changed, and in this case, jet upset training and recovery became a part of recurrent simulator training. Also, the majority of B737 operators now advised their crews to "look out" for something similar. And several crews did see things that otherwise would have been overlooked that aided in the investigation.

So fast forward to today. A UA B767 is alleged to have had a total navigational error. I still can't see how, but we'll go with this. And as you state, there have been similar occurrences in the past. If this actually did occur there would be an investigation. If during that investigation it was shown there is an Achilles Heel with the aircraft or procedures, it would not be a secret! Everyone would know about it, at least at an internal level.

Boeing would be issuing statements with possible solutions and possible procedure changes. Also, Boeing would ask B757/B767 crews to "look out" for various hints that it may occur again.

That is why I am suspicious about this incident. If all we have ever heard about it, is some anonymous blog ... did it really happen?



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9240 posts, RR: 76
Reply 46, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5490 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 45):
I think you missed my point.

No I did not. For a while no one had information about AF447, and all sorts of speculation was about. When more information was available, it was apparent the crash had nothing to do with pitot tubes.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 45):
speculation was rampant

You can say that again.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 45):
There were several A330/Thales incidents during airline operations that did not become public until the investigation of AF447.

There has been lots, and it is not restricted to the A330, hence all the research into alternative methods.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 45):
As information was spread worldwide, airlines were advised, Airbus revised procedures

Do not think so, Airbus has sent out several OIT, however nothing has changed, they still ask people to just FLY they aircraft if it happened again.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 45):
A330 crews were updated daily

Rubbish, there was no drama or concern over them.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 45):
One of the safest and most common airframes now was suspected of having an Achilles Heel.

Again that is dramatic rubbish, there is nothing to show that the 737 is unsafe or has an "Achilles Heel'.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 45):
Again, other incidents (there were several) became public, procedures were changed, and in this case, jet upset training and recovery became a part of recurrent simulator training.

Yep, that went well for AA, nuff said. There is god training and bad training.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 45):
A UA B767 is alleged to have had a total navigational error. I still can't see how, but we'll go with this.

Lots of possibilities.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 45):
And as you state, there have been similar occurrences in the past. If this actually did occur there would be an investigation

Sure, that does not mean it makes the press. There would be a couple of report issued every week, that does not mean anything changes. Once a report is issued, the authority that issued the TCDS will look at it, and then maybe issue a AD, or they might just leave the manufacturer to deal with it.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 45):
If during that investigation it was shown there is an Achilles Heel with the aircraft or procedures, it would not be a secret! Everyone would know about it, at least at an internal level.

Not at all.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 45):

Boeing would be issuing statements with possible solutions and possible procedure changes. Also, Boeing would ask B757/B767 crews to "look out" for various hints that it may occur again.

Nope, Boeing has lawyers as well. If it meets the regulations, and is certified, it is safe by government standards.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5164 posts, RR: 43
Reply 47, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5483 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
Do not think so, Airbus has sent out several OIT, however nothing has changed, they still ask people to just FLY they aircraft if it happened again.

One of the biggest changes was the introduction of the "Loss of Reliable Airspeed" drill. It had always been an OEB, with a checklist. However, during the investigation of AF447, it was moved to "Drill", (memory) status. At the time one of the suggestions for the loss of AF447 was the possible mishandling of the aircraft with an airspeed indication loss. This was before the CVR/FDRs were recovered, and while the Thales probes were still suspect.

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
Rubbish, there was no drama or concern over them.

Perhaps not where you fly, but there sure was here. In fact, on reflection and reading your answers, I looked up old emails from Flight Operations and there they were. I say again, we now know that was not the cause for the loss of AF447, but we didn't know that then.

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
Again that is dramatic rubbish, there is nothing to show that the 737 is unsafe or has an "Achilles Heel'.

Not now ... but there certainly was then. Or do you have another suggestion for the loss of the UA COS and US PIT aircraft? Granted, it was a million to one long shot, but that long shot resulted in two fatal accidents, and five other incidents were reported where the crew was able to get the aircraft to the ground using the then recently published handling suggestions.

Remember, my point was not suspicion of the B737, but that during the investigation of unusual circumstances, operators were advised.

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
Yep, that went well for AA, nuff said. There is god training and bad training.

And there is salient training with regard to current issues with an investigation. That training may well have saved the five other aircraft. And, aiding in the investigation was the ability to investigate those five aircraft while they were still "whole".

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
There would be a couple of report issued every week, that does not mean anything changes.

That is my point exactly ... these reports are issued every week. And to date ... we still have not read a report of this alleged loss of all navigation.

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
Lots of possibilities.

OK, I'll bite. What could cause the loss of all navigation capabilities, IRS, GPS, VOR, ADFs? To the point that turning around and aiming for a larger land mass was a better idea? And ... there were no indications in the cabin of a loss of electrics.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 48, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5480 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
Quoting longhauler (Reply 45):

Boeing would be issuing statements with possible solutions and possible procedure changes. Also, Boeing would ask B757/B767 crews to "look out" for various hints that it may occur again.

Nope, Boeing has lawyers as well. If it meets the regulations, and is certified, it is safe by government standards.

Yes. I've written those types of communications. The lawyers have no say in them whatsoever. One of the very first actions when an OEM suspects an issue is an all-operator message ("MOM" or Multi-Operator Message) to airlines asking if they have any similar experiences. The lawyers don't enter in to it.

Tom.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9240 posts, RR: 76
Reply 49, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5461 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 47):
One of the biggest changes was the introduction of the "Loss of Reliable Airspeed" drill. It had always been an OEB, with a checklist

Standard Airbus QRH has always had it as a QRH item, the memory items have always been there. Have a look at the AF447 report you can see the standard QRH procedure at the time. Sounds like your company had its own QRH procedures, which might explain why your airline was nervous. Unreliable speed is a QRH procedure in every FAR 25 aircraft I have flown, the procedure regardless of manufacturer is much the same, thrust and attitude.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 47):

Perhaps not where you fly, but there sure was here.

We had a series of these events in the 1990s and changes all of our probes over to another supplier, we were not the only airline to do so. We have see these events on all fleets of aircraft we fly.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 47):

Not now ... but there certainly was then.

I still do not agree, did you see the FAA ground them ?

Quoting longhauler (Reply 47):
And to date ... we still have not read a report of this alleged loss of all navigation.

What sort of report are you expecting to see, it is not an accident.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 47):
What could cause the loss of all navigation capabilities, IRS, GPS, VOR, ADFs?

The QF event into BKK was just as a result of some water on an avionics bus. The 787 during flight testing I understand was just due to some FOD. Maybe someone left a spanner/screwdriver behind and they hit some bumps causing a short ? Spilt beverage on the center console ? Inadvertent activation of the RAT ?

Quoting longhauler (Reply 47):
To the point that turning around and aiming for a larger land mass was a better idea?

Perhaps they were ETOPS and did not have the required equipment working to continue.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 48):
Yes. I've written those types of communications. The lawyers have no say in them whatsoever. One of the very first actions when an OEM suspects an issue is an all-operator message ("MOM" or Multi-Operator Message) to airlines asking if they have any similar experiences. The lawyers don't enter in to it.

I disagree Tom, history shows that the lawyers do get involved, an example would be the forward cargo doors self unlocking. The OEM denied that this was happening despite getting reports from several operators and one serious accident.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 50, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5451 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 40):
And today it suddenly does?

Over the decades it proved to be an unnecessary concern, and many airlines did not want the extra expense and extra maintenance requirements of the eyebrow windows.

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
What sort of report are you expecting to see, it is not an accident.

I believe it would meet the requirement for an incident report to the FAA.

However, my point was that an aircraft returning to the mainland would be noticed.

An aircraft broadcasting on ATC frequencies that they had lost all navigation capability would be noticed by people with scanners.

It might be a situation where fighters would be scrambled to help locate the aircraft and ensure it had the backup of an additional nearby aircraft to confirm their estimated position.

All that activity would not go unnoticed, in my opinion.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5164 posts, RR: 43
Reply 51, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5454 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
What sort of report are you expecting to see, it is not an accident.

I only used the A330 and B737 as an example, as it shows the point I was trying to make. When there are incidents of "unusual circumstances" airlines and thus pilots are advised. Until the final cause is determined, suggestions are made by both the airline and manufacturer. I can think of a lot of accidents/incidents that caused the same concern.

So I was not commneting on either the A330, or the B737 as much as I was commenting on that because I was there, I recall the communication. That communication stopped when the cause was determined (A330) or the cause was fixed (B737).

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):

I still do not agree, did you see the FAA ground them ?

No, and they also did not ground the L188 when clearly there was a very significant engineering flaw in the aircraft. (Another example of unusual circumstances causing increased communication and revised procedures, which ended when the problem was fixed).

Or I ask again, do you really not think it was the rudder PCU that caused the B737 accidents?

But ... back to the topic at hand ... the UAL B767.

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
The QF event into BKK was just as a result of some water on an avionics bus. The 787 during flight testing I understand was just due to some FOD. Maybe someone left a spanner/screwdriver behind and they hit some bumps causing a short ? Spilt beverage on the center console ? Inadvertent activation of the RAT ?

Pulling out my B767 electrics chapter, I still can't see any one point, where a short would remove ALL navigation capability, right down to the ADFs. I doubt such a system, with such a vulnerability would be certified.

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
Perhaps they were ETOPS and did not have the required equipment working to continue.

While no one here has been able to determine if this incident actually occurred, I am going to guess that this is the most likely. But not under the circumstances stated. A "Navigation Error" as relayed to the passengers, could have been any ONE item that reduced the ETOPS capability. And, I doubt it was 3 hours out, as that is pretty close the the point of no return, and most crews would likely just continue to the destination as it wouldn't matter (legally) either way.

Mostly likely it was less than an hour out, and conferring with Maintenance, they decided to bring the aircraft back, and the resultant flight was "about 3 hours".

It reminds me that when talking to the passengers, one has to be very careful how things are worded. Something as simple as say an altimeter problem, now becomes a "Total loss of all navigation capability".

But that brings us up to my original point. Because we have NOT heard anything further, it is likely something mundane that was misinterpreted.

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
Sounds like your company had its own QRH procedures, which might explain why your airline was nervous

Our procedures are certified by Transport Canada, as dictated by the manufacturer. I am pretty sure no one was "nervous", as much as safety conscious. There is a reason why we were recently named the second safest airline on the earth (after BA) ... it is this brutal obsession with safety to the extreme.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 52, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5385 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
Quoting longhauler (Reply 47):
And to date ... we still have not read a report of this alleged loss of all navigation.

What sort of report are you expecting to see, it is not an accident.

It's not an accident (or incident) but it is a reportable event. If it occured, the OEM would be obligated to report it to the FAA (assuming the OEM knows about it).

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
Quoting longhauler (Reply 47):
What could cause the loss of all navigation capabilities, IRS, GPS, VOR, ADFs?

The QF event into BKK was just as a result of some water on an avionics bus. The 787 during flight testing I understand was just due to some FOD.

The 787 didn't lose IRS, GPS, VOR, or ADFs.

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 48):
Yes. I've written those types of communications. The lawyers have no say in them whatsoever. One of the very first actions when an OEM suspects an issue is an all-operator message ("MOM" or Multi-Operator Message) to airlines asking if they have any similar experiences. The lawyers don't enter in to it.

I disagree Tom

That's fine, but you claimed that the communications might not happen because the lawyers get involved. I've done these communications (multiple times) and the lawyers aren't involved at that stage.

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
history shows that the lawyers do get involved, an example would be the forward cargo doors self unlocking. The OEM denied that this was happening despite getting reports from several operators and one serious accident.

This is much later in the process; initial questions out to airlines with "have you guys seen this?" don't come with any legal burden.

Tom.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9240 posts, RR: 76
Reply 53, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5366 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 51):
Or I ask again, do you really not think it was the rudder PCU that caused the B737 accidents?

No I do not think the PCU alone was at fault, they proved to be safe for years. It took exposure to certain conditions for it to occur.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 51):
I still can't see any one point, where a short would remove ALL navigation capability, right down to the ADFs. I doubt such a system, with such a vulnerability would be certified.

You are thinking logically, there have been numerous spurious events in the past where aircraft have behaved differently than designed. Another 767 years back, Martinair had some problems with battery connectors and an intermittent IDG fault, that caused all sorts of electrical issues. In that case Boeing actually took the aircraft back to try and find the cause, they did not find it. The IDG was replaced at a later date and sent away, then they found the connectors worn inside.

Probably it was also a 767-400, not -300. Another United 767-400 event occurred in late June on an IAH-AMS flight after screen went blank, the aircraft diverted to EWR. I do not recall an incident report being published for that flight either, despite diverting and dumping fuel.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 51):

While no one here has been able to determine if this incident actually occurred

The original article talks about two similar incidents in 2 weeks, one on a 767, the other on a biz jet where the screens went blank. The author of the article claimed to be in direct contact with people involved in both incidents.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 51):

Our procedures are certified by Transport Canada, as dictated by the manufacturer.

All I can say is that unreliable speed was not an OEB, it was a QRH checklist. The checklist is in the AF447 report. Sure you are not thinking of the old FCOM Bulletin N° 824/1 on the A320 ? Even that referred to the QRH checklist for the operational procedure.

I do not see how TC could certify the checklist, unless they issued their own TCDS. Regulators that used a TCDS acceptance procedure do not generally issue their own certification data, they accept the foreign TCDS certification basis.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 52):

It's not an accident (or incident) but it is a reportable event.

To who ? and for what reason ?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 52):

The 787 didn't lose IRS, GPS, VOR, or ADFs.

I thought it lost displays ?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 52):

That's fine, but you claimed that the communications might not happen because the lawyers get involved. I've done these communications (multiple times) and the lawyers aren't involved at that stage.

I do not believe for a second that your corporate legal office does not have any say in those transmissions, I would think they have as a bare minimum a framework in place for all such external communication on what can be transmitted, not only to protect Boeing, also so customers are not identified.

What communication did Boeing put out after the United event in June, S7 airlines event in October ? or the recent tail scrape on rotation in Afghanistan ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 54, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5370 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 53):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 52):

It's not an accident (or incident) but it is a reportable event.

To who ? and for what reason ?

To the FAA. Because the FAA requires it. For Boeing, it's called the Continued Operational Safety Program. I believe the FAA has something similar with Airbus, although I'm not sure if it has the same name.

Quoting zeke (Reply 53):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 52):
The 787 didn't lose IRS, GPS, VOR, or ADFs.

I thought it lost displays ?

As far as I know, displays stayed up. RAT dropped because they got down to one generator, not because they lost power.

Quoting zeke (Reply 53):
I do not believe for a second that your corporate legal office does not have any say in those transmissions

You can believe whatever you wish. However, since I actually wrote them and handled every step from initial draft through to hitting the equivalent of "Send", I know every person who touched a message. Not one off them was a lawyer or connected to corporate legal in any way.

Quoting zeke (Reply 53):
I would think they have as a bare minimum a framework in place for all such external communication on what can be transmitted, not only to protect Boeing, also so customers are not identified.

If you mean "they" as in "the OEM," then yes, they have a framework for external communication. They don't let you just fire off emails to every airline on the planet. There are standards in place to protect customer identity, for how to phrase things, for the style or writing, etc. I would assume that, somewhere, lawyers were involved in figuring out that framework. But nothing is in there about whether or not you can ask a technical question based on legal exposure. It just doesn't happen. If there is a technical issue it gets reviewed by the right engineering and flight operations people then, if warranted, it goes to the airlines. That's it.

Quoting zeke (Reply 53):
What communication did Boeing put out after the United event in June, S7 airlines event in October ? or the recent tail scrape on rotation in Afghanistan ?

No idea. I haven't been in any position to write or see those types of communications since about 2008. Keep in mind that, unless your airline has a very strange tech pubs distribution, you're very unlikely to have seen it either.

Tom.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5164 posts, RR: 43
Reply 55, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5349 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 54):
I haven't been in any position to write or see those types of communications since about 2008. Keep in mind that, unless your airline has a very strange tech pubs distribution, you're very unlikely to have seen it either.

Does that mean therefore, that only those within an airline (or Governmental body) that are directly associated with that aircraft type would see these communications? And in this example, only those associated with the B767 would see them .... the rest of the airline (or world) would not?

I wonder, as in 1995, I was a B737 Captain at CP, and during the B737 investigations, we were receiving communications from the Airline Flight Ops, Boeing and Transport Canada itself. Flight Ops keeping us advised, Boeing with several questionnaires, and TC with new approved procedures on "what to do". Shoot, some of them may even have been from you!

One day, early in 1995, we were flying from YRB to YUL, (talk about glamour!) in a B737-200 Basic Combi, and during cruise the control columns went full right deflection! Bang! The autopilot stayed on, speed fell off a bit, but it was maintaining altitude. After securing the cabin, we wrote down all the information we could. Then -bang- it went back to normal! I always remember the F/O saying ... "boy, I can't imagine the reports we are going to have to write, and I can't imagine the number of people that are going to want to talk to us".

He was right, I spent three hours that evening talking with a Boeing engineer! Maybe that was you!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 56, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5344 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 25):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23):
Sextant in use on a DC-8.

That's not a DC-8 .... VC-10 maybe?

Caption said it was a DC-8. I guess it was wrong.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5164 posts, RR: 43
Reply 57, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5347 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 56):
Caption said it was a DC-8.

That one has six eyebrow windows, the DC-8 only two. I was guessing the VC-10 over the IL-62, as I remembered the VC-10 had the pull shades to cover them.

Remember the DC-8 had the fluorescent lights in the centre cockpit ceiling, covered with that stuff that looks like awnings used in a trailer park!  



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5344 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 57):
I was guessing the VC-10 over the IL-62, as I remembered the VC-10 had the pull shades to cover them.

That is a VC-10 all right. Il-62, completely different game. Plus I dont think it ever had a sextant hole.



The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 59, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5345 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 55):
Does that mean therefore, that only those within an airline (or Governmental body) that are directly associated with that aircraft type would see these communications?

Yew. The normal chain of events for something like this is:
1) Airline notifies OEM of event
2) OEM assesses event for reportability, safety, prior record, etc.
3) If reportable, the event is formally reported to the regulators
4) Reportable or not, the event is sent to the relevant engineering groups and the relevant flight operations groups.
5) After engineering & flight operations assessment (no laywers!), the OEM will determine if more data is required from the reporting airline, from other airlines, and if any information should be sent out (via any of about a dozen possible communication paths).
6) Assuming a reportable event that the OEM had not seen before and wanted to know if anyone else had seen, a message would be composted to all airlines potentially exposed to the event describing what had occurred, requesting data on any similar occurences, and requesting that any future occurences be reported to the OEM.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 55):
And in this example, only those associated with the B767 would see them .... the rest of the airline (or world) would not?

Generally yes. Unless you have a compelling reason to think that the issue affects multiple models, you usually start with operators of just the affected type. So if it's believed to be just a 767 problem, it would only go to 767 operators. Airlines without 767's, people within airlines not associated with their 767's, and the public, generally would not. Sometimes you know there is multi-model exposure (for example, if the same P/N behind the issue is used on multiple types), in which case you cast a wider net up front.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 55):
I wonder, as in 1995, I was a B737 Captain at CP, and during the B737 investigations, we were receiving communications from the Airline Flight Ops, Boeing and Transport Canada itself. Flight Ops keeping us advised, Boeing with several questionnaires, and TC with new approved procedures on "what to do". Shoot, some of them may even have been from you!

Not me (wrong time frame) but yes, that's the type of thing one would expect to see. If you were involved in narrowbody SFAR88 or NGS work you likely would have seen stuff from me.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 55):
He was right, I spent three hours that evening talking with a Boeing engineer! Maybe that was you!

Nothing makes an engineer more excited than a problem that needs solving!

Tom.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9240 posts, RR: 76
Reply 60, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5333 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 54):

You can believe whatever you wish. However, since I actually wrote them and handled every step from initial draft through to hitting the equivalent of "Send", I know every person who touched a message. Not one off them was a lawyer or connected to corporate legal in any way.

You must me talking about very minor things. For example you will see transmissions made by Airbus regarding AF447 not only had to get signed off internally, they had to get approved by the investigators. This is part of the ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices Annex 13 on how accident/incident information is used and released.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 54):
I would assume that, somewhere, lawyers were involved in figuring out that framework.

Its called product liability.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 54):
No idea. I haven't been in any position to write or see those types of communications since about 2008. Keep in mind that, unless your airline has a very strange tech pubs distribution, you're very unlikely to have seen it either.

No I have not see them, never suggested that I did, just pointing out that Boeing does not write to all operators about every incident. Incidents happen every other day, like the 777 engine fire and diversion last week. That event did not make the news anywhere, the aircraft is however AOG in BOM.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 59):

Yew. The normal chain of events for something like this is:

I have to disagree with this. The PIC is responsible for the notification of accidents/incidents to the nearest appropriate authority, this is part of the ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices Annex 6. Likewise under the same SARP the PIC is responsible of reporting defects to the operator, not the OEM. On larger aircraft this is normally via tech log entry, that then goes into a electronic maintenance system. How that information is then used depends on the regulator.

I was under the impression that unusual maintenance events (Service Difficulty and Malfunction/Defect reports) get filed to the local regulator by the maintenance organization/repair station. The regulator then contacts the OEM (an intermediate step maybe involved where the local regulator notifies the regulator that issued the TCDS). SDR reports are searchable by the public, e.g. "Allow the public to search/review all the submitted reports." http://av-info.faa.gov/sdrx/



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 61, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5339 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 60):
You must me talking about very minor things.

No. "Very minor things" don't meet the threshold for mandatory reporting.

Quoting zeke (Reply 60):
For example you will see transmissions made by Airbus regarding AF447 not only had to get signed off internally, they had to get approved by the investigators.

That was an actual accident; very different protocols involved. The situation we're talking about in this thread wasn't an accident.

Quoting zeke (Reply 60):
This is part of the ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices Annex 13 on how accident/incident information is used and released.

Yes. But this was neither an accident nor, as far as I can tell, an incident.

Quoting zeke (Reply 60):
No I have not see them, never suggested that I did, just pointing out that Boeing does not write to all operators about every incident.

Nobody suggested they did. But the event suggested in this threat would absolutely be reportable and, given that it appears to be unprecedented, would certainly trigger a request for more data to other airlines operating the type.

Quoting zeke (Reply 60):
I have to disagree with this. The PIC is responsible for the notification of accidents/incidents to the nearest appropriate authority, this is part of the ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices Annex 6.

I don't disagree. I was talking about reportable events, not accidents/incidents.

Quoting zeke (Reply 60):
Likewise under the same SARP the PIC is responsible of reporting defects to the operator, not the OEM.

Yes, absolutely. I've never heard of any line pilot reporting anything directly to the OEM. I said the *airline* reports to the OEM, not the PIC. Within airlines the process varies, but the typical path is from the PIC to the tech log to airline engineering to the field service rep (an OEM employees) and, from there, into the OEM system.

Quoting zeke (Reply 60):
I was under the impression that unusual maintenance events (Service Difficulty and Malfunction/Defect reports) get filed to the local regulator by the maintenance organization/repair station. The regulator then contacts the OEM (an intermediate step maybe involved where the local regulator notifies the regulator that issued the TCDS).

This can happen, but it's rare that it comes in via the regulator first. It's far more common that the airline reports to the OEM and the regulator at the same time, in which case both entities will pursue roughly parallel paths until they join back up through a review of reportable events, an AD worksheet, or something similar.

Many larger airlines (representing about 1/3 of the global fleet) also have direct data connections between their maintenance systems and the OEMs so much of the initial data transfer happens essentially automatically. However, due to data volume, most of that data is aggregated into statistics.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5164 posts, RR: 43
Reply 62, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5329 times:

I know this is merely anecdotal ... but I am bored here on a layover.

Using the online tracking websites, I see that every UAL B767 that departed SFO in August headed for HNL, made it to HNL! One flight was cancelled, and didn't depart.

So I remain doubtful that this event even occurred.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9240 posts, RR: 76
Reply 63, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5314 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 61):
given that it appears to be unprecedented

Hardly unprecedented when S7 and United (the earlier diversion I mentioned) had similar events recently. Also the avweb article actually was referring to two similar events occurring in 2 weeks, one on the 767, the other on a bizjet.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 61):
But this was neither an accident nor, as far as I can tell, an incident.

Which prompted my question above, why it would need to be reported ? Only events that are accidents and incidents have to be reported, that is standard ICAO SARP. SDR is also another reporting mechanism for maintenance related events.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 61):
I said the *airline* reports to the OEM, not the PIC.

No, airlines to do report to OEMs.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 61):
Many larger airlines (representing about 1/3 of the global fleet) also have direct data connections between their maintenance systems and the OEMs so much of the initial data transfer happens essentially automatically.

This I agree with, that is not however the airline reporting the events to the OEM, the OEM gets to peek at some of the maintenance data from the airline lets them look at. Reporting means some kind of process, like a SDR, or accident/incident. AHM/AIRMAN I see as interface tool between operators maintenance systems and OEMs, there is however no "reporting" process (which implies investigation and follow up of every entry), unless you consider the OEM getting the electronic copy of the tech log entry as a report. A tech log entry could be as simple as clean the windshield to an engine fire. One of these is reported, one is not, the reason why one is reported is in the ICAO SARP, and is reported to the closest appropriate authority.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 62):
I know this is merely anecdotal ... but I am bored here on a layover.

That is better than anecdotal, as that data is based upon ATC feeds. Why didn't you also try an contact avweb as they claim to be contact with people from both the bizjet and 767 events.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 64, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5317 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 63):
Which prompted my question above, why it would need to be reported ?

Because the FAA requires it. I'm not sure how many times we're going to go around this circle.

Quoting zeke (Reply 63):
Only events that are accidents and incidents have to be reported, that is standard ICAO SARP.

Only accidents and incidents have to be reported *by ICAO SARP*. There are other policies in the world...like the FAA's requirement for reporting a certain subset of events. Total loss of navigation would fall under that umbrella and the OEM would be legally obligated to report the event to the FAA. This is a reporting process between the OEM and the FAA based on the FAA's authority as the issuer of the type certificate, not the accident/incident reporting process established by ICAO.

Quoting zeke (Reply 63):
there is however no "reporting" process (which implies investigation and follow up of every entry), unless you consider the OEM getting the electronic copy of the tech log entry as a report.

Yes, there is a reporting process. Yes, it's documented and required by the FAA. And yes, it usually gets triggered by the OEM getting an electronic notification of a tech log entry (it may be the text of the log, more typically it is an expanded explanation of a log entry from the airline's engineering group).

Quoting zeke (Reply 63):
One of these is reported, one is not, the reason why one is reported is in the ICAO SARP, and is reported to the closest appropriate authority.

Things reportable under ICAO SARP are reported as required by ICAO SARP. Things reportable under FAA COSP are reported as required by FAA COSP. The list of events reportable under FAA COSP is *far* larger than under ICAO.

Tom.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9240 posts, RR: 76
Reply 65, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5312 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 64):
Because the FAA requires it.

And all I ask is where ? Show me the FAA regulation/order that requires an operator to report maintenance defects to an OEM. The operators are required to report issues to the regulator that issues the certificate of airworthiness. The relationship you have described I have not seen before, and is at odds with things like FAA Order 8100.5A "Aircraft Certification Service Mission, Responsibilities, Relationships and Programs".

I own a couple of aircraft, and have worked in airlines for years, I have never reported anything to an OEM, never been required to. I have filed SDRs and incident reports with the regulator, it is the regulator that takes it up with the TCDS holder. FAA Order 8100.5A explains how this relationship works between different regulators, differed FAA regions, and the TCDS holders.

In terms of what the NTSB now want reported :
(9) A complete loss of information, excluding flickering, from more than 50 percent of an aircraft's cockpit displays known as:
(i) Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) displays;
(ii) Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) displays;
(iii) Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) displays; or
(iv) Other displays of this type, which generally include a primary flight display (PFD), primary navigation display PND), and other integrated displays;

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 64):
Things reportable under FAA COSP are reported as required by FAA COSP.

As far as I am aware, that is what SDRs are for.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 66, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5306 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 65):
And all I ask is where ?

FAR 21.3, Reporting of Failures, Malfuctions, and Defects
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...t&node=14:1.0.1.3.9.1.11.3&idno=14

This particular FAR applies to design approval holders (TC holders), not airlines.

Quoting zeke (Reply 65):
Show me the FAA regulation/order that requires an operator to report maintenance defects to an OEM.

It's not an order against operators, it's a regulations against OEMs (specifically, type certificate holders).

I think, perhaps, we've confused each other. I am not (nor did I ever say) that the *airline* has to report it to the regulator or the OEM. I said that the OEM has to report it to the regulator *if the OEM knows about it*:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 44):
I know what's on the required reporting list for the FAA (as type cert issuer for the 767, not as the airline regulator)...total nav failure would have to be reported if the OEM knew about it.

If the airline doesn't report it to the OEM, there's nothing the OEM is obligated to do. However, most reasonably sized airlines have sufficiently close relationships with the OEMs that they know what's reportable and they notify the OEM. This is also a major thing that field service reps look out for.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 59):
Yew. The normal chain of events for something like this is:
1) Airline notifies OEM of event
2) OEM assesses event for reportability, safety, prior record, etc.

Note that it's the *OEM* that assesses reportability to the regulator under COSP, not the airline. If the airline doesn't notify the OEM and the event is not ICAO reportable, nobody has done anything wrong (assuming no other agreement between the airline and the regulator). However, if the OEM is notified they are bound by regulation to report a certain subset of events (documented in their individual COSP agreements with the FAA) to the FAA. Since, in all the example posited in this chain the OEM has been involved, then we know that the OEM was notified and therefore would have had to report it to the regulator.

Note that the list of reportable events may be different by TC holder...it's negotiated with the regulator in a manner roughly comparable to how an airlines negotiates their OpsSpec. The items spelled out in FAR 21.3(c) are the minimum.

Tom.


User currently offline26point2 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5309 times:

Funny what people will believe. These iPad-saved-the-day stories are ridiculous.

Not sure if this has been mentioned....These events suposedly occurred in RVSM airspace, no? Failure of nav ability, autopilot, altitude hold capability, etc. while in RVSM requires an immediate notification to ATC (FAA). Therefore we would have a way to verify it. Also, there is a provision if all nav is lost past the ETP and that is to continue with headings calculated on the nav log and dead recon the rest of the way. This will get you very close to your planned destination. Turning around when past the ETP is certainly not in any manuals I have read.

Much about the stories makes no sense to informed folks. Thanks for the laugh though.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5164 posts, RR: 43
Reply 68, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5298 times:

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 67):
Also, there is a provision if all nav is lost past the ETP and that is to continue with headings calculated on the nav log and dead recon the rest of the way. This will get you very close to your planned destination. Turning around when past the ETP is certainly not in any manuals I have read.

This is something that also had my head scratching. Flight plans today are so accurate, it is eerie!

I have left YYZ for a 10 hour flight to TLV, and way-point time crossings, fuel checks and wind checks are pretty well dead-nuts on ... even 9 hours into the flight!

Turning around three hours into the flight has a lot of issues. Are your radios working? If they are, why? When EVERYTHING else is not! If not, how do you confirm weather for your return. Other than your ETOPS alternate for the first half of the flight, which has now expired, do you have any weather information? You DO have weather information for your destination, and your ETOPS alternates on that end of the flight.

How about winds aloft? You know the winds ahead on your flight plan are likely accurate, as then would be the planned headings/tracks ... would you trust the now 3 or 4 hour old winds if you tried to return? Then calculate your own headings/tracks? Of course, its do-able, but .... if I saw this in a movie, I'd get up and walk out!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2577 posts, RR: 25
Reply 69, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5296 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 68):
How about winds aloft? You know the winds ahead on your flight plan are likely accurate, as then would be the planned headings/tracks ... would you trust the now 3 or 4 hour old winds if you tried to return? Then calculate your own headings/tracks? Of course, its do-able, but .... if I saw this in a movie, I'd get up and walk out!

Given the choice between either

(a) trusting in winds aloft predictions (made several hours ago) plus dead reckoning, to aim at a group of islands or

(b) turning back and aiming at a large continent with a very recognisable coastline and many long runways to use should the navigation be off.

I think I'd rather choose (b), on the basis that no matter how inaccurate the navigation is I'm certain to end up over dry land and near a suitable runway.

Comments to the original article have continued to be added and the pilot/passenger who reported the incident has recently made some comments. Basically playing down the possibility that an ipad was actually used to help navigate the 767. They are worth reading as they do seem to add some veracity to the story.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5164 posts, RR: 43
Reply 70, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5304 times:

I know this is all "what if" conjecture, and great cockpit puzzle during slow times, but ... my two cents, which is in absolutely no way correct.

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 69):
(a) trusting in winds aloft predictions (made several hours ago) plus dead reckoning, to aim at a group of islands or

Today's flight plans, with winds aloft predictions are frighteningly accurate. As I said above, I have flown over a way-point, 9 hours after take-off at exactly the planned time, with planned fuel ... and the one that most astonishes me ... is that the wind (we write it down, some airlines don't) is exactly as forecast within 5 knots and 10 degrees! Remember, the prediction may be 10 hours old, but it is for the time you are forecast to overfly the way-point.

The Hawaiian chain is actually quite large, and from that angle, quite wide. It is not the same as say what presented Amelia Earhart. That, and I am going to guess that once you have lost communication, (after having missed a PX), then likely the last few hundred miles will be (ahem) escorted.

(One of my thoughts when reading this, was that I hoped they had their Interception Procedures handy.)

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 69):
(b) turning back and aiming at a large continent with a very recognisable coastline and many long runways to use should the navigation be off.

Assuming you can see the coastline. I'd bet better odds on seeing Hawaii than SFO as far as weather.   And assuming you recognize the coastline, then assuming you can find a piece of concrete to land 'er on!

But as I said, this is pure conjecture, and more of a "what if" exercise to play with your flying buddies. Myself, I find it very hard to turn the ship around after having passed the point of no return. (Or ETP as it is technically called, kind of old school here). You are already on a safe track, you know the airspace is clear, you know the forecast weather, and you know they will be waiting for you ... turn around, and you lose a lot of protections, without ATC communication. I am going to guess, if you were past the ETP, (and at 3 hours, you are), ATC is likely expecting you to continue, not turn around.

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 69):
Comments to the original article have continued to be added and the pilot/passenger who reported the incident has recently made some comments. Basically playing down the possibility that an ipad was actually used to help navigate the 767. They are worth reading as they do seem to add some veracity to the story.

Except that no one can find any reference that any UAL flight in August departing from SFO for HNL, didn't make it all the way to HNL. I am always very leery of the "I was there" arguments. And most people that make these comments don't realize that the ATC records are there, and most are on tracking websites.

I started wondering why someone would start such a story, until I read the justification for the whole thread. It was to be able to use your electronic devices during flight. (Why people want to, totally eludes me) But ... if someone concocted a story, where one of those dastardly evil electronic devices actually saved a flight ..... when then ... there's a reason to use them!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9240 posts, RR: 76
Reply 71, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5292 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 66):

This particular FAR applies to design approval holders (TC holders), not airlines.

Yep

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 66):
I said that the OEM has to report it to the regulator *if the OEM knows about it*:

That I agree with.

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 67):
Failure of nav ability, autopilot, altitude hold capability, etc. while in RVSM requires an immediate notification to ATC (FAA).

Yep, all that you have to say is negative RVSM, they may give you a clearance to remain in RVSM airspace, or you may need to descend. Either way it is not a big deal. I have flown a lot of aircraft that were not RVSM approved/capable into RVSM airspace, request the level with negative RVSM at the end, sometimes they will give it to you, sometimes not. Essentially what they are clearing you for a block clearance in RVSM airspace.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 72, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5299 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 71):
Yep, all that you have to say is negative RVSM, they may give you a clearance to remain in RVSM airspace, or you may need to descend. Either way it is not a big deal.

I second zeke here...there's some subset of the aviation community that absolutely freaks out when you lose (or don't have) RVSM capability. ATC really doesn't care...you just tell them you're not RVSM and, most of the time, they'll give you an altitude block and everything is great. If they can't, they'll either try to give you an alternate routing or you just slog along below RVSM altitude for as long as you have to. It's annoying but hardly a crisis.

Tom.


User currently offline26point2 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5271 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 72):
ATC really doesn't care...you just tell them you're not RVSM and, most of the time, they'll give you an altitude block and everything is great.

True. Not a big thing if planning to enter RVSM airspace. I used to resort to this tactic before RVSM certification was common too. But suppose one is already in RVSM airspace and then can't maintain required criteria as in the case of this 767 story. Also, CEPAC (Hawaii) tracks are limited. Only 1 track in each direction plus an additional 2 way track from either LA or SF areas. These are not random routes so during busy times of day the tracks can be congested. One guy in the thick of it suddenly not able to maintain RVSM separation would get the attention of a few folks. Traffic below and above would have to move up or down to maintain 2000' vertical separation and that may not be possible. There is no radar in this airspace and traffic is required to maintain minimum 10 minutes in trail.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9240 posts, RR: 76
Reply 74, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5274 times:

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 73):
But suppose one is already in RVSM airspace and then can't maintain required criteria as in the case of this 767 story.

I have never had an issue with this, just let ATC know and they can sort it out. I have lost some of my air data before in RVSM airspace in a very 3rd world country, which resulted in loss of autopilots. Advised ATC negative RVSM, they were happy for us to maintain our level and having to revert to ole backup hand flying technique, I would think FAA controllers would be able to do better than some 3rd world country.

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 73):
Also, CEPAC (Hawaii) tracks are limited. Only 1 track in each direction plus an additional 2 way track from either LA or SF areas. These are not random routes so during busy times of day the tracks can be congested.

I understand the issue, a number of contingency plans could be adopted by ATC, they could issue the clearance to maintain a sensible level for the reciprocal track, offset the ATC track by a number to provide separation, or ask the aircraft to descend below FL280.

We still do not know if the event happened, the author of the article claims he was on 767 at the time.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2577 posts, RR: 25
Reply 75, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5250 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 70):
The Hawaiian chain is actually quite large, and from that angle, quite wide.

I know this, but the islands themselves are still small compared to the surrounding ocean and to the alternative of the landmass of the USA.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 70):
Assuming you can see the coastline. I'd bet better odds on seeing Hawaii than SFO as far as weather.

You may not see the coastline initially but the point is you will know you are "feet dry" and being over the USA even if you missed the coast, and not far from a runway. I'm just suggesting it might be a more tempting prospect for a crew with no nav information. The possibility of missing the islands completely can't be ignored.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 70):
I started wondering why someone would start such a story, until I read the justification for the whole thread. It was to be able to use your electronic devices during flight.

The article is about why passengers are required to turn them off but flight crew may not be. It doesn't claim the ipad saved them. The "pilot" witness cited says the Captain only referred to using the compass. I'm not saying it happened but it is conceivable. Why invent the anecdote when the fact that crews use such devices in flight would be enough to make his point?

Quoting longhauler (Reply 70):
(Why people want to, totally eludes me)

Oh come on, you're up at the pointy end with a nice view. The self loading cargo needs something to keep themselves busy and laptops, smartphones and tablets help pass the time.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5164 posts, RR: 43
Reply 76, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 5256 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 75):
The article is about why passengers are required to turn them off but flight crew may not be. It doesn't claim the ipad saved them. The "pilot" witness cited says the Captain only referred to using the compass. I'm not saying it happened but it is conceivable. Why invent the anecdote when the fact that crews use such devices in flight would be enough to make his point?

This question arises from time to time. At my airline, pilots are issued iPads for use in the cockpit at all times. There are reasons why this is allowed and safe .... These iPads are tested for use at this location, and proven to have no ill effects. Also, below 10,000', there are devices installed to secure the iPad should its use be required. Makes sense ... but, also consider:

I can not bring a personal iPad into the cockpit and use it! ONLY the airline issued iPad which has been tested. Further, I can only use the airline issued iPad in the cockpit. When positioning as a passenger, I can not use the "cockpit safe" iPad in the cabin, as it has not been tested at that location.

Overkill? Maybe. But that is aviation today ... always looking for the "what if".

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 75):
The self loading cargo needs something to keep themselves busy and laptops, smartphones and tablets help pass the time.

I guess it is a generational thing. I remember crossing the Atlantic in a DC-8 or VC-10 with zero IFE. I don't recall being bored. It still amazes me that today's AVOD IFE with thousands of hours of entertainment is not sufficient to occupy today's "entertain me" generation.

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 75):
I'm just suggesting it might be a more tempting prospect for a crew with no nav information.

The crew had nav information.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3673 posts, RR: 5
Reply 77, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 5259 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Someone in the comments finally posted the flight number and day that this turn back happened. Flight UA989 SFO-KOA on Aug 27.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...9/history/20120827/1610Z/KSFO/PHKO

They turned around before the point of no return for the flight. It looks like they turned back a little less than 2 hours into the flight, not 3 hours, which makes a lot more sense. They tried to fix the problem, couldn't fix it before the point of no return, and turned back to SFO, which would be the correct procedure. For reference, SFO-KOA was around a 5 hour flight and SFO-HNL around 4:45 during that time in August.

It's not that I doubted that this occurred, but that they would turn around past the point of no return.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31712 posts, RR: 56
Reply 78, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 5255 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 65):
The operators are required to report issues to the regulator that issues the certificate of airworthiness
Quoting longhauler (Reply 76):
can not bring a personal iPad into the cockpit and use it! ONLY the airline issued iPad which has been tested. Further, I can only use the airline issued iPad in the cockpit. When positioning as a passenger, I can not use the "cockpit safe" iPad in the cabin, as it has not been tested at that location.

Overkill? Maybe. But that is aviation today ... always looking for the "what if".

Makes sense.....Its covering every corner of what could go wrong.......& avoid it.

On the topic.....What is the SOP on carriage of Portable LED Rechargeable Flashlights on board.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5164 posts, RR: 43
Reply 79, posted (2 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5210 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 78):
What is the SOP on carriage of Portable LED Rechargeable Flashlights on board.

It is listed in the "other PEDs with nil or negligible radio transmission capabilities" category, in that they can be used any time other than taxi, take-off and landing.

This is SOP at the airline I fly, reflecting Canadian Air Regs.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 80, posted (2 years 1 month 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5121 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 79):
It is listed in the "other PEDs with nil or negligible radio transmission capabilities" category, in that they can be used any time other than taxi, take-off and landing.

Makes sense. Most LED flashlights operate on straight DC, and diodes aren't used as radio oscillators in any circuit I know of  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic United 767 Nav Failure?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
UAL 767 Dual Engine Failure posted Sun Mar 11 2001 02:01:13 by 16June01OCS
United/Continental Cabin Chimes posted Fri Oct 12 2012 16:47:18 by jrdioko
767-300ER Handling Implications Of Blended Winglet posted Mon Oct 8 2012 20:04:51 by JaggySnake
Thomson 767 Routes posted Wed Sep 26 2012 03:10:46 by nema
Engine Failure On Take Off And ATC posted Mon Sep 24 2012 10:57:00 by smartt1982
Engine Failure After Take-off posted Wed Sep 12 2012 11:11:15 by mawingho
United Airlines Flight Attendant Question posted Tue Aug 28 2012 06:26:05 by ryanrap1
United Flight Number Ranges... posted Sat Jul 21 2012 12:48:48 by IndustryInsider
How Strong Is The 767 Structure? posted Mon Jul 9 2012 12:35:27 by b767
Eng Failure/ Shutdown @ Cruise ALT posted Sun May 13 2012 12:09:55 by smartt1982

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format