deicer Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4456bd6b/0005&opt=0The Polish Panstwowa Komisja Badania Wypadkow Lotniczych (Polish State Commission for Aircraft Accident Investigation, PKBWL) released their preliminary report reporting that the aircraft suffered a hydraulic leak shortly after takeoff from Newark's runway 04L, when the gear and flaps were retracted. The center hydraulic system's (System "C") pressure dropped as a result. Just after the flaps had fully retracted the crew received a low pressure message on the Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS), the hydraulic quantity indication reduced from 105.1% to 10.6% in 2 minutes, the aircraft was climbing through 3850 feet MSL at that point. The crew actioned the relevant checklists and consulted with the airline's operations center resulting in the decision to continue the flight.While on approach to Warsaw the crew performed the alternate gear extension procedure however the gear did not extend. While in a holding military aircraft were dispatched to visually check the aircraft and reported the gear was still in the up position. The crew attempted another gravity extension which still did not extend the gear.About 72 minutes after aborting the first approach to Warsaw, in view of the failed attempts to lower the gear and the fuel reserves depleting the crew decided to commence a belly landing. After the aircraft came to a stop an evacuation commenced through all doors except for the right hand overwing exits, the evacuation was completed in about 90 seconds.About 15-20 minutes after the end of the evacuation the first members of PKBWL arrived at the scene and found the "C829 BAT BUS DISTR" circuit breaker on the P6 panel was in the popped position, the "C4248 LANDING GEAR - ALTN EXT MOTOR" circuit breaker was in the closed position. The recordings of cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were secured.Circuit breaker C829 protects a number of systems including the alternate landing gear extension system. It's position was not recorded or indicated by any aircraft system.After the aircraft was lifted off the runway, the circuit breaker C829 was closed, then the alternate landing gear extension was activated and successfully extended the landing gear, so that the aircraft could be towed to the airline's maintenance hangar.On Nov 2nd the location of the hydraulic leak was identified in a damaged hose belonging to the center hydraulic system. The hose was disassembled and sent to the NTSB for further analysis.The captain held an ATPL and accumulated 15,980 hours total flying time (thereof 14,007 hours in command) and 13,307 hours on type. The first officer (ATPL) accumulated 9,431 hours total flying time, thereof 1,981 hours on type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 ummmmm. Would not loss of the Center system hydraulics cause issue with operating ETOPS? I am not 100% familiar with the 300 model but does the center system not operate the Emergency HDG as well as being the system driven by the RAT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlazer Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Yes good question....Its certainly a no go before entering the Etops segment - if it occurs afterwards then its discretionary.. but that was certainly not the case here. Would this be similar to a loss of system B on the 37?SB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 It's all about cost. What'll end up costing you more; the fine for an ETOPs violation, or crash landing your aircraft in a foreign country on the other side of the planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I have another operational question; with all the 'communicating' going on between the crew, maintenance and likely Boeing; why didn't anyone get around to checking the 'breakers'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 With respect the ETOPS, if I recall, loss of one hydraulic system may allow one to continue 120 minutes. It's been awhile, I could be mistaken. MY choice would have been to return to New York. But it's done. Depending on where the P6 cb panel is (I can't remember), the crew may not have been able to get at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex 9A Guy Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 P6 on the 737 is behind the F/O. The panels are usually numbered from top to bottom. In my aircraft P6-1 is at the top and P6-12 is down at floor level. In the photo on AvHerald the CB is shown down at floor level, the blue carpet is a dead givaway <grin>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 ummmmm. Would not loss of the Center system hydraulics cause issue with operating ETOPS? I am not 100% familiar with the 300 model but does the center system not operate the Emergency HDG as well as being the system driven by the RAT?The HMG does indeed operate off the centre hyd system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 P6 on the 737 is behind the F/O. The panels are usually numbered from top to bottom. In my aircraft P6-1 is at the top and P6-12 is down at floor level. In the photo on AvHerald the CB is shown down at floor level, the blue carpet is a dead givaway <grin>.Ummmm....what does a 737 have in common with a 767? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex 9A Guy Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Cos it's a Boeing and Boeing's usually have a lot of general similarities, such as circuit breaker ideology. The P6 CB panels are usually behind the F/O and the P-18 panels are behind the captain. At least they are on the 707, 727 and 737.Pardon me for the thinking the 767 might be similar. Touchy or what???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Touchy or what????Yeah, I guess... Edited out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 While I agree with the concerns on the sensibility of continuing an ETOPS flight after the hydraulic system loss, are we considering the net effect of a decision to return to New York? Would they not have still faced the prospect of a gear up landing? Initial reports said that the crew elected to burn off some fuel before the landing in Warsaw. Would they have decided differently if they'd been going back to New York with 7 or 8 hours of fuel still in the tanks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 While I agree with the concerns on the sensibility of continuing an ETOPS flight after the hydraulic system loss, are we considering the net effect of a decision to return to New York? Would they not have still faced the prospect of a gear up landing? Initial reports said that the crew elected to burn off some fuel before the landing in Warsaw. Would they have decided differently if they'd been going back to New York with 7 or 8 hours of fuel still in the tanks?Most definitely a concern, however they would have had a lot more time to troubleshoot once they were aware the alternate system wasn't working. Additionally, a consideration we are not aware of, some 763's have a fuel jettison mod. When the time came, they might have been able to rid themselves of the contents of the centre tanks. If they had the mod.My thinking about returning is based upon a reasonable (I think) assumption that the alternate gear extension would work. In fact, I wouldn't even be too concerned about an overweight landing as the Boeings are certificated to land at their all up weight subject to a post-landing inspection. The higher the overweight, the more detailed the inspection. The inspection could take anywhere from 3-24 hours. The "fix" for the hydraulic system would probably take just as long.Interesting thought about a possible gear up landing at, say KJFK. Do/can they foam runways in North America? I thought not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 CB..What CB ????...actual photo after the landing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 OMG!There's got to be a good story to go with this pic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 OMG!There's got to be a good story to go with this pic?see post # 1 of this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 The CB's in that location sometimes get "popped" by a piece of luggage stowed there. It's not uncommon. I've seen it. The aircraft will RTG because the pilots don't take a good enough look... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.