‘Vaping’ pilot caused Air China plane to plunge 6,500m
Image copyright: REUTERS
A co-pilot smoking an e-cigarette on an Air China flight caused the plane to start a rapid emergency descent, investigators have said.
They say he tried to hide the fact that he was smoking but accidentally shut off the air-conditioning, causing oxygen levels to fall.
The crew on Tuesday’s flight from Hong Kong to the city of Dalian released oxygen masks and brought the plane more than 6,500m (21,000ft) lower.
It later returned to cruising altitude.
An initial probe by China’s Civil Aviation Administration in China has shown that the co-pilot tried to turn off a fan to stop smoke reaching the passenger cabin without telling the captain, but turned off the air-conditioning unit instead.
Passengers say they were told to fasten their seat belts as the plane had to descend.
Image copyright: WEIBO Image caption: People posted images online of the dropped oxygen masks on the flight
The regulator’s safety officer Qiao Yibin said the crew had to perform emergency measures, dropping oxygen masks until they could figure out the problem.
If a plane loses cabin pressure, the pilot has to bring the aircraft to a lower altitude to keep crew and passengers safe.
Once they saw that the air conditioning had been turned off, they reactivated it and brought the flight back to its normal altitude.
Authorities are reportedly investigating the cause “in greater detail”, examining both the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder to determine precisely what caused the incident.
The airline promised a “zero-tolerance” approach to crew misbehaviour on Chinese social media site Weibo.
Chinese flight regulations prohibit all flight crew from smoking, and banned passengers from using e-cigarettes on board in 2006.
But there have been accusations of pilots smoking on board other Chinese flights, including in 2015 when the state-run radio spoke to passengers on a Hong Kong-Beijing flight who claimed to smell strong smoke coming from the cockpit.
The Singapore Transport Safety Investigation Bureau inquiry points out that: while too little fuel risks starvation, excessive fuel can result in incorrect calculations for take-off speeds, higher fuel-burn, or reduced controllability.
Refuelling crew foxed before SIA 777 turnback
Investigators have described as fortunate a refuelling error involving a Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-200ER because the aircraft, unknown to the crew, departed with a large surplus of fuel rather than a deficiency.
The aircraft was being fuelled at Singapore ahead of a service to Johannesburg. Its crew had calculated the jet needed to carry 86t of fuel.
For reasons that could not be determined, the aircraft’s internal fuel-quantity indicator had registered the aircraft as a 777-200, which features a smaller centre fuel tank than the -200ER. This caused the aircraft’s instruments to under-measure the amount of fuel on board.
Although the aircraft’s cockpit and refuelling-panel indicators showed total fuel of 86t, the refuelling had taken longer than expected, and the ground personnel found that the dispenser had apparently delivered 121.5t to the aircraft.
The ground team was uncertain about the discrepancy, initially believing that the fuel-flow counter might not have been reset before the fuel was dispensed.
In order to check the quantity of fuel on the aircraft, the team’s lead technician performed a ‘magnastick’ check – a manual reading using floating gauges. This was only carried out on the centre tank, because the two wing tanks were assumed to be full as a result of the way the refuelling system was programmed.
From the lead technician’s readings, and the wing-tank assumption, the certifying technician calculated that the fuel quantity on board was 86t.
But the Singapore Transport Safety Investigation Bureau inquiry says that, despite the apparent match in the calculated figure, the magnastick readings were “grossly inaccurate”. The technicians, it says, had “limited” experience in performing the check and that the magnastick readings were “likely not correct”.
Combined with the 5.5t of fuel which had remained on the 777 from the previous flight, the uplift of 121.5t meant the aircraft departed with 127t of fuel on board – some 41t above the intended figure of 86t.
“It was fortuitous that the aircraft had been fuelled with much more fuel than it needed,” says the inquiry. “Had the magnastick reading errors been in the other [direction], the aircraft could have ended up in a fuel starvation situation in flight.”
The aircraft was fitted with a programme switch module which had been correctly configured for a 777-200ER.
But investigators believe a fault in the module – the nature of which could not be established – resulted in its incorrectly interpreting the aircraft as a 777-200, which meant that the fuel-quantity processor did not take into account eight fuel sensors in the enlarged centre tank. This meant the aircraft was under-reading the actual quantity of fuel on board.
About 1h into the flight the aircraft’s crew received an alert stating that the amount of fuel on board – based on burn-off calculations – was less than the figure on the fuel-quantity indicator, and that the discrepancy was increasing. The crew opted to turn around and return to Singapore where, after landing, the fuelling error was discovered.
The inquiry points out that, while too little fuel risks starvation, excessive fuel can result in incorrect calculations for take-off speeds, higher fuel-burn, or reduced controllability.
Investigators state that the crew did not experience handling difficulties. The aircraft involved (9V-SVC) was undamaged during the 16 April 2014 flight and none of its occupants was injured.
Pilot lands passenger jet safely after windshield shatters
By Luo Wangshu
Sichuan Airlines Flight 3U8633 prepares to land in Chengdu with a damaged cockpit windshield (circle) on May 14, 2018. (WAN BI / XINHUA)
Captain Liu Chuanjian’s heroic actions moments after a cockpit windshield blew out on Monday, nearly pulling his co-pilot from the Airbus A319, has won him praise from flight professionals and internet readers for saving over 100 people onboard.
Liu had just leveled his aircraft at a cruising altitude of 32,000 feet when a deafening sound tore through the cockpit. He looked over and saw the right side of the windshield gone.
There was no warning sign. Suddenly, the windshield just cracked and made a loud bang. The next thing I know, my co-pilot had been sucked halfway out of the window
Liu Chuanjian,caption
“There was no warning sign. Suddenly, the windshield just cracked and made a loud bang. The next thing I know, my co-pilot had been sucked halfway out of the window,” Liu told Chengdu Economic Daily after making an emergency landing, saving the lives of all 119 passengers.
“Everything in the cockpit was floating in the air. Most of the equipment malfunctioned … and I couldn’t hear the radio. The flight was shaking so hard I could not read the gauges,” he said.
Calls to Liu’s cellphone by China Daily went unanswered on Monday evening.
Sichuan Airlines Flight 3U8633 had taken off as scheduled from southern China’s Chongqing Jiangbei International Airport at 6:26 am and was due in Lhasa, capital of the Tibet autonomous region, at 9:05 am.
The windshield shattered about 7 am at least 100 kilometers into the journey. The aircraft, which had been traveling at 800 to 900 k/hr, went into a nosedive that lasted five to six seconds, according to the newspaper.
The cabin crew had been handing out breakfast to passengers when the plane pitched forward.
Passenger Zeng Jun described the scene in an interview with Chengdu Economic Daily as “too scary and too dangerous”. People were screaming, while bags and trays were flying everywhere, he said.
He recalled grabbing one of the oxygen masks that fell from overhead as a flight attendant began telling passengers to trust in the flight team. “When we finally landed, some of the women were in tears,” he said.
The co-pilot, who was pulled back into the cockpit and buckled into his chair, suffered a cut to his face and a sprained wrist, and a flight attendant received minor injures, the Civil Aviation Administration of China’s Southwest Regional Administration said.
Liu, who joined Sichuan Airlines after leaving the military in 2006, was able to right the plane quickly and made an emergency landing at Chengdu Shuangliu International Airport at 7:46, about 45 minutes after the windshield blew out.
After landing, most passengers were transferred to another flight to Lhasa, but 29 passengers were sent to the hospital, one with a sprain and another with bruising, China Central TV reported.
The Airbus A319 aircraft’s flight controls were damaged in the incident happened on May 14, 2018. (SCREENSHOT OF CCTV VIDEO)
The aviation administration’s Southwest Regional Administration said the crew handled the emergency correctly.
Liu later said the accident reminded him of a similar incident with British Airways in 1990, when a windshield separated from its frame, and the captain was sucked out of the plane. With the captain pressed against the window frame for 20 minutes, the co-pilot made a safe landing.
Li Xiaohu, head of safety for the aviation administration’s Southwest Regional Administration, said an investigation has begun and the reason the windshield shattered will be looked into.
Zhang Wei, a council member of the Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics, said the broken windshield could have damaged the aircraft’s structure, causing it to be unable to fly or causing more serious problems if it does.
“The broken window in the cabin causes a loss of pressure. It leads to a loss of air in the cabin and the oxygen masks will fall,” he said.
The cockpit windshield is a very important part of an aircraft and may be the strongest glass on the craft. It consists of multiple layers and is very hard to break. This incident is very strange and only further investigation will lead to a resolution, Zhang added.
The A319 was purchased by Sichuan Airlines in 2011 and had flown 19,912 hours.
On 10 June 1990, shortly after British Airways Flight 5390 left Birmingham Airport in England for Málaga Airport in Spain, an improperly installed windscreen panel separated from its frame, causing the plane’s captain to be blown partially out of the aircraft. With the captain pressed against the window frame for twenty minutes, the first officer managed to land at Southampton Airport with no loss of life.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive (EAD) that requires operators to inspect fan blades on certain CFM56-7B engines within 20 days.
The directive is based on a CFM International Service Bulletin issued today and on information gathered from the investigation of Tuesday’s Southwest Airlines engine failure. The inspection requirement applies to CFM56-7B engines.
Specifically, engines with more than 30,000 total cycles from new must complete inspections within 20 days. The EAD becomes effective upon publication. The engine manufacturer estimates today’s corrective action affects 352 engines in the U.S. and 681 engines worldwide.
The engine fan blades are used on Boeing 737-600, 700, 800 and 900 jets.
The USA National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) believes one of the blades snapped on the Southwest flight 1380 on Tuesday 17 April 2018, flying at about 30,000 feet, hurling debris that broke a window. The incident killed one passenger who was sucked part way out of the plane and injured seven others. The plane, a Boeing 737 bound from New York to Dallas with 149 people aboard, made an emergency landing in Philadelphia.
NTSB investigators said one of the engine’s fan blades broke off from the hub during the flight. The broken edge of the blade showed crack lines consistent with metal fatigue.
NTSB QUESTION: Why didn’t the ring do its job?
NTSB investigators are taking the Southwest engine apart to understand what happened and will look at maintenance records for the engine. There’s a ring around the engine that’s meant to contain the engine pieces when this happens, and in this case it didn’t, which is the big focal point for the NTSB.
Engine failures occur from time to time as engines are being pushed to produce as much power as possible, many expert believe engines are right on the edge, and consequently sometimes engines fail, and that’s why the containment ring is there.
The engine failure was reminiscent of a similar event on a Southwest Boeing 737-700 jet in August 2016 as it flew from New Orleans to Orlando, Florida. Shrapnel from the engine left a 5-by-16-inch hole just above the wing. Passenger oxygen masks dropped from the ceiling. Pilots landed the plane safely in Pensacola, Florida.
Qatar Airways A321 Badly Damaged in fire at Doha Airport
Inflight entertainment satellite antenna caught fire
On 8 December 2017 a Qatar Airways A321 was undergoing maintenance at a remote stand at Doha’s Hamad International Airport, and apparently the inflight entertainment satellite antenna caught fire.
The A321 with the tail number A7-AIB, which took its first flight in July 2010, so it’s still a fairly new plane.
Here’s the statement from the airline regarding this: “At 06:50am today a Qatar Airways Airbus A321 aircraft positioned at a remote stand experienced a fire whilst under maintenance at Hamad International Airport (HIA). The fire inside the cabin was promptly contained and extinguished. Whilst there was some damage to the aircraft there were no injuries. A full investigation is being conducted by the local authorities to establish the cause. Traffic at HIA was not affected and is running as normal.”
Pictures of the burnt plane have been circulating on Facebook, and it’s not pretty (and certainly looks worse than “some damage”):
I’m curious whether Qatar Airways plans to write off the plane, or if there’s anyway a plane with this much damage can still be fixed.
At least this happened while the plane was undergoing maintenance, rather than while the plane was in service…
One passenger and six crew injured after turbulence hits Brisbane-bound Cathay Pacific flight
Cathay Pacific CX157 diverted to Manila so victims could get medical attention
A passenger and six cabin crew members on a Brisbane-bound Cathay Pacific Airways flight were injured when the aircraft hit severe turbulence on Monday ( October 2017.
Flight CX157 left Hong Kong International Airport at 12.49pm for the eastern Australian city and reportedly encountered the bumpy conditions about an hour into the journey, as staff were serving meals.
The cabin reportedly shook for 10 minutes, during which crew members were thrown up and hit the ceiling.
The Airbus A350, carrying 264 passengers, 11 crew and three pilots, diverted to Manila, in the Philippines, so the injured could get medical attention, an airline spokeswoman said.
The plane landed in Manila at 3.48pm local time. The injured have since been discharged.
All non-injured passengers departed on the plane for Brisbane at 6.29pm
French aviation agency, Airbus investigate ‘serious incident’
Arrangements made to get 497 passengers to Los Angeles
An Air France A380Photographer: Manuel Velasquez/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
An Airbus SE A380 superjumbo operated by Air France was forced to make an emergency landing in eastern Canada after one of its four engine broke apart over the Atlantic Ocean.
The aircraft was flying from Paris to Los Angeles when the “serious incident” occurred, prompting the pilots to land in Goose Bay, Labrador, the airline said Sunday in a statement. No one on Air France Flight 66 was hurt and arrangements have been made to get the 497 passengers to California, the airline said. Airbus and France’s BEA air-accident investigation bureau dispatched a team of experts to Canada to investigate the aircraft, they said.
While engine malfunctions aren’t uncommon, so-called uncontained failures, when the protective outer part of the power plant known as the cowling rips apart, are. Such explosions are more serious because it can cause catastrophic damage to the wing holding fuel or the hydrolics that control the flaps. The Air France plane’s jet turbines are made by Engine Alliance, a joint venture of General Electric Co. and Pratt & Whitney Corp. The Alliance said on Twitter that it is aware of the Saturday incident and looking into it.
Photos posted by passengers online showed the outer of the two engines under the right wing with extensive damage, and the entire frontal ring of the cowling missing. Pratt & Whitney is owned by United Technologies Corp. and the manufacturer also equips the Airbus A320neo with upgraded engines, while GE and partner Safran SA offer a rival product.
The incident is the most severe since Qantas Airways Ltd. in 2010 grounded all six of its A380 aircraft after an inflight explosion on one of the plane’s engines. Those power plants were made by Rolls-Royce Group Plc, whose Trent 900 model is the other engine of choice on the A380. The Qantas jet was out of service for 18 months for repairs and retestesting.
The A380 is among the increasingly rare breed of airliners powered by four engines. The other two aircraft still in use are the Boeing 747, as well as the A340, which is no longer produced. Airlines now favor two-engine models because they are more fuel efficient, and twin-turbine aircraft have become more reliable even after a malfunction of one engine. Aircraft like the Airbus A350 are certified to fly for several hours on just one engine to reach the next airport for emergency landings.
After a decade in service Airbus has slowed output of the A380, the world’s biggest passenger aircraft, to just one plane a month. Air France operates 10 of the aircraft. The biggest user of the double decker is Emirates, which uses mainly Engine Alliance turbines for the plane, but has switched lately to the Rolls-Royce model.
"In Australia you need a photo ID to enter a licensed venue, but not to board a flight!" Roger Henning, Founder, Homeland Security Asia Pacific
Letters: Airport security, the constitution and the NBN
A visible presence, but the holes in security are obvious. Justin McManus
by Letters
Basic steps to tighten airport security
When will the government implement the necessary protective security measures to minimise the risk of a terrorist attack on civil aviation, and require airlines to assure the travelling public as to who and what is flying on their aircraft.
Anyone at our city and regional airports can board a domestic aircraft without ever producing identification. Simply check in online or at an electronic kiosk (including checked baggage), obtain your boarding pass, pass through security screening, and proceed to the boarding gate then onto the aircraft! Or, simply hand your boarding pass to one of the thousands of people in the sterile area, many of whom are not flying.
You, and your ticket and baggage, are never matched.
The bottom line is that our domestic carriers cannot guarantee who or what is travelling in their aircraft.
There are six basis steps to improving aviation security that should be implemented at all domestic airports immediately:
•Automated passenger profiling from the point of ticket purchase (national database interfaced with select government agencies and all airlines).
•Ticket-passenger verification (photo ID) prior to screening – only flying passengers permitted to proceed to the sterile concourse area.
• Scalable risk-based security screening (not everyone presents the same risk) incorporating automated full body scanning.
• Secondary ticket/passenger verification (photo ID) at the boarding gate.
• Replace the low-paid private security personnel working at our airports with a competent and highly motivated government aviation security force forming part of our border protection force. We do this for customs and quarantine inspection, why not security?
• Replace the Aviation Security Identification Card issued to employees, concessionaires and contractors working at our airports with biometric access control and ID –start tracking the person, not the card.
Anything less is simply a cost-driven politically expedient approach to our safety.
Mike Carmody, Former chief of security, Sydney Airport, Forde, ACT
Thai Airways International has grounded part of its Boeing 787-8 fleet owing to turbine replacement issues with the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engine.
The carrier says it is working with Rolls-Royce on the issue, which it expects to be sorted out by September.
“Due to the shortage of Boeing 787 Dreamliner engine spare parts, it is necessary that some aircraft of this type must be parked and temporarily cannot be operated, which is a problem that affects Thai and other airlines worldwide whose 787 aircraft are equipped with Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines that have turbine blade problems,” says Thai’s acting president, Usanee Sangsingkoo, in a statement.
She adds: “As this problem may affect flight safety, Thai has removed these engines from its aircraft and sent them for repair at the Rolls-Royce technical maintenance center in Singapore earlier this year.”
The Star Alliance carrier has also conducted negotiations with R-R to obtain compensation expenses accruing from the issue.
When contacted by FlightGlobal, R-R said it is working to resolve Trent 1000 issues.
“This is the continuation of work which started last year to upgrade Trent 1000 engines to the latest standard,” says R-R.
“We have a clear service management plan in place with all operators to undertake this work and minimise disruption. The current disruption that we are causing to the Thai fleet is clearly of great concern to us. The Thai and Rolls-Royce teams are working together to minimise this impact and restore full flight operations as soon as possible.”
In September 2016, R-R said it would replace turbine blades in the intermediate-pressure turbine of the global Trent 1000 fleet. The engine-maker said that the existing design was “failing to meet its expected lifespan”, and that it would roll out a global fix.
Media reports from Thailand say that four of Thai’s six 787-8s are grounded. One story shows the image of a parked 787-8 with an empty engine cowling.
Flight Fleets Analyzer shows that the average age of Thai’s 787s is 2.6 years. Thai also has two 787-9s on order, which are to be delivered in September and December.
Sangsingkeo adds that it is using other types on 787-8 routes to ensure passenger service is not affected. FlightMaps Analytics shows that Thai’s 787s operate short and middle-haul routes. Key destinations include Brisbane, Perth, Delhi, Beijing, and Phuket.
Flight Fleets Analyzer shows that there are 213 in-service 787s globally that are powered with Trent 1000s. Of these, 101 are with operators in the Asia-Pacific.
Globally, major users of Trent 1000 powered 787s include All NipponAirways with 59 aircraft, British Airways (24), and LATAM (23).
Lone-wolf radio hoaxer hacks Melbourne air traffic control
Federal police are hunting a lone-wolf radio hoaxer who made 15 illegal transmissions to air-traffic controllers and domestic passenger pilots last month – including one telling a Virgin pilot to abort a landing.
The agencies investigating the incidents believe only one person has made the transmissions by finding a way to tap into the air traffic control frequency and communicate directly with planes and control towers.
AFP hunt for Melbourne air traffic control hoaxer
The Australian Federal Police are investigating a series of hoax calls to air traffic controllers and domestic pilots. Vision courtesy ABC News Melbourne.
Flight data shows the plane came close to the runway at 5.19pm as it approached Tullamarine Airport. Then three minutes later the plane climbed to 3800 feet and started circling over north-west Melbourne – all under orders from the hoax air-traffic controller.
John Lyons, president of Virgin Independent Pilots Australia, said rogue radio transmissions were “a concern” because pilots must obey instructions from air traffic controllers but may not be able to verify who is or isn’t a legitimate controller.A radio hoaxer told a Virgin pilot to abort a landing. Photo: Tian Law
Later that evening, the hoax caller impersonated the pilot of a light aircraft. He issued a mayday call and pretended to be experiencing engine trouble. The ABC have posted audio where air traffic control personnel are trying to assess the mayday call. An air traffic controller then communicates with the light aircraft which the unauthorised individual is pretending to pilot.
“I can see you there now. Roger your mayday. Could you please advise what your situation is,” the air traffic control operator asks.
“Engine failure,” the hoax caller replies. “Descending passing through 4500.”
Mr Lyons said rudimentary amateur VHF radio equipment could be used in such a hoax.
Avalon Airport. Photo: James Davies
“It’s not hard for someone to obtain,” he said. “There’s a lot of people that spend a lot of time observing aircraft at airports, and many of them have radios that monitor frequencies. But most of them just listen.
“In a worst case scenario, an aircraft will be told to go around, but there’s an aircraft on a runway crossing that runway.”
Mr Lyons said rogue transmissions also pose a risk because if someone pretends to be a pilot issuing a distress call, that call gets top priority from traffic controllers.
The union boss, who was a pilot for 48 years, said rogue broadcasters would have to be close to a plane in order to tell it to turn around.
“Normally VHF would require them to be in line of site of the aircraft,” he said.
Mr Lyons said the investigating agencies were doing everything they could to eliminate safety risks.
The Australian Federal police are yet to make any arrests in relation to the incidents. Also investigating are the Australian Communications and Media Authority and Airservices Australia – a government-owned ‘air navigation’ company.
None of the three agencies would comment further last night. Sources said this was for fear of copycat amateur radio operators trying to do the same thing.
However, Fairfax Media understands it is relatively easy to track rogue radio transmissions – but only when the signal is live. It is not known if authorities made attempts to track the rogue transmitter while he was making fake broadcasts.
Police warn the offender could face 20 years in jail. The incidents happened to controllers and pilots at or near Tullamarine and Avalon airports.
The AFP’s head of Crime Operations, acting Assistant Commissioner Chris Sheehan, said today the public could be assured there was no risk to safety.
However the ABC reported on Monday night that a Virgin Australia passenger flight from the Gold Coast to Melbourne aborted its landing only 80 metres from the tarmac on October 27. According to the ABC the incident happened around 5:00pm on October 27. The aircraft changed its altitude and course under the instruction of the unauthorised person transmitting from an unknown location.
“These incidents are being thoroughly investigated by the AFP, with technical support from the ACMA,” says Assistant Commissioner Chris Sheehan.”The airlines have been briefed to ensure the advice has been passed on to their pilots and to ensure appropriate measures are in place.”
Aircraft do not use encrypted frequencies like police because air traffic control need to respond quickly to incidents and have planes coming in from interstate as well as overseas. To move all aircraft in Australia to an encrypted system would be very costly.
At Leeds-Bradford airport in Britain in 2010, investigators from the airport’s anti-terrorism Project Griffin probed two incidents of hoaxers – or ‘pirates’ – trying to communicate with planes which were landing or taking off.
All airlines have individual call signs and all air traffic controllers use special VHF frequencies – but all this information is freely available online.
According to Australia’s Aviation Transport Act, interfering with aircraft navigation facilities or “putting the safety of an aircraft at risk by communicating false information” are in the same class of offence as taking control of an aircraft, damaging an aircraft or planting a dangerous item onboard.
Image copyright: REUTERS
Image copyright: WEIBO Image caption: People posted images online of the dropped oxygen masks on the flight
.jpg)
A radio hoaxer told a Virgin pilot to abort a landing. Photo: Tian Law