[SimonS1]

superchris –

So you are really saying that if I were a passenger I would be expected to keep an eye out the window and see the latches were undone? And that I should be able to recognise that from my position in the cabin? Even though posters above have pointed out that it isn’t that always easy to spot the latches are undone when actually walking around the plane?

You presumably don’t work for BA, because if anyone there suggested that, they would become the laughing stock of the aviation world.

[tiggerbrown]

The error @superchris – 05/06/2013 13:21 GMT has made is to presume the panels were visibly open. Tut.

Given that on walkround it wasn’t spotted, it was despatched on the basis that they couldn’t be seen to be open, how in hell are you expecting a passenger with extremely limited vision while in the cabin to be to spot that? It’s not like a car bonnet propped up on a metre long strut.

Reality check for 1 please.

[AnthonyDunn]

Human Factors.

I recall, when at London Business School, having Sir Ian Gibson of Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) come along. He recounted the story of how an operative had wrongly allowed clutch fluid to be poured into engines and engine oil into the hydraulic systems on the Nissan Micra production line. They had to replace quite a few newly installed engines and hydraulic systems as a result.

Rather than just choose to blame the operative, Nissan chose to investigate how and why the incident could have occurred. The first point was that the line side storage area where the fluid drums were located was poorly lit so it was possible to fit the wrong nozzle to the wrong fluid drum. The next point was that the two nozzles were identical so they could have been fitted to either drum.

The answer was that Nissan (a) improved the storage site lighting and (b) redesigned the nozzles and drum fittings so that it was physically impossible to repeat the error.

If this is not a first with the engine cowl latches, is it not time for a redesign so that it is obvious that they are either open or closed?

[Marco64]

Tonight’s BBC Watchdog Investigation confirmed BA retracted their excuse of “exceptional circumstances” and are investigating claims on an individual basis. The passengers will suffer loss here as BA will delay and not pay out.

AnthonyDunn – 05/06/2013 18:32 GMT
“Human Factors.”

The only “Human Factors” in this case is a failure of management and goes to show how poorly BA takes safety.

[Guest_Poster]

AnthonyDunn – 05/06/2013 18:32 GMT

I can see how you got to your conclusion, but I do not think it is correct. The cowls are designed the way they are for a reason, for example one might ask why are they not designed to ‘fail safe?’ The reason is usually to do with weight, as every extra pound affects performance and in airline economics, this is significant.

What would not surprise me is some type of sensor being added and a warning message being displayed to the pilots, in the same way that cargo doors are electroically monitored. However, as an earlier poster correctly pointed out, such sensors are not infallible.

[SimonS1]

Marco64 – 05/06/2013 20:56 GMT

Yes I saw the Watchdog programme. Slightly cryptic BA comment about meeting their obligations under EU law, however it’s clear the u turn as started.

[AnthonyDunn]

@ Marco64 – 05/06/2013 20:56 GMT

It is becoming increasingly obvious that something went awry somewhere between those responsible for maintenance and the sign-offs of the work done to the two engines. However, your contention that

“… this is a failure of management and goes to show how poorly BA takes safety”

is simply not supported by the statistics:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/9793121/Worlds-safest-airlines-revealed.html

[MartynSinclair]

@Guest Poster – I would imagine a sensor fitted to non sealed doors/covers/cowlings would not be an easy task….

Far easier for the latch to be positioned so it can be checked in a more efficient manner..

This error is as basic as checking doors are closed and locked.

[Guest_Poster]

MartynSinclair – 06/06/2013 07:08 GMT

I am not an engineer, so do not know how difficult it would be to fit a sensor to cowls, so my opinion is based purely on the number of incidents that have occured and regulators desire to try to eliminate risks.

There are procedures in place to ensure cowls are latched closed before departure, but we still have over 30 occurences, so I am unsure if this can be categorised as a ‘basic error’ or a repeating system failure, which is surely the concern?

WRT to the latch position, they work as ‘hooks and eyes’ across the bottom joint and it is not easy for me to visualise how this could be changed in practice. I think you mentioned Gulstreams earlier, I am not familiar with that manufacturer and wonder how does access to the engines work with the GIII/IV/V?

I have edited this post to add a link you may find interesting

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2000/a00o0199/a00o0199.asp

As you can see, the latches have three configurations, two of which would allow detachment and in the example aircraft, have been painted orange to increase visibility.

[MartynSinclair]

it was ‘likely’ to have been missed/assumed locked (and the emphasis in on “likely”) as the latch may have been “felt” closed/locked and not visually checked.

Most engine cowlings locks / latches (most….not all) can be visually checked. If part of the system on the 319 is on the bottom of the engine, this is positioned badly for a pilot to check. Again, I am not familiar with BA ops or 319 walk round procedures but have based these comments on the information that the latch is not easily vivisble.

Gulfstream latches are visible to pilots / ground crews as are most (not all) engine cowlings latches on biz jets…

[Guest_Poster]

MartynSinclair – 06/06/2013 07:48 GMT

My addition to my last post crossed with yours, I think you may find the photographs of the cowls and latches helpful in understanding why these events happen, if the procedure of checking and double checking is not followed.

Thanks for the info about the Gulfstream, I can see that this configuration is helpful to ensuring closed and locked cowls.

[BigDog.]

It really does beggar belief that if the “number of incidents as very significant” it is only now that the leading safety adviser in global aviation is just getting involved.

On the other hand … “John Leahy, the chief operating officer of Airbus, said that the number of incidents was small and the company had no plans at the present time to review the engine latches. “You just have to follow appropriate maintenance. People have to be careful.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/04/aviation-safety-airbus-cowl-latches

Meanwhile
…”Passengers on flight BA762, who feared for their lives as the plane returned to Heathrow on one, exposed engine, are consulting a specialist aviation lawyer with a view to legal action.”

Currently it appears CYA is more paramount than understanding and preventing.

[AnthonyDunn]

For the hard of hearing, CYA is Big Dog’s polite version of “protect my posterior”.

[BigDog.]

British Airways may be forced to pay compensation to passengers for flight delays.

Following BBC’s watchdog, BA’s U turn by agreeing to compensation appears increasingly likely.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/10105801/British-Airways-may-face-compensation-payout-for-delays.html

Raymond Veldkamp, of Flight-delayed.co.uk, a website that assists passengers with compensation claims.

He said: “This is a textbook example of an incident that can be accredited to the operational responsibility of an airline.

“The passengers on this flight are entitled to receive financial compensation from BA in our judgment.”

Regulation 261 has cost the airline industry more than £1 billion in compensation payments since the 2010 volcanic ash crisis.

BA said: “We are continuing to work with customers on the BA 762 flight to provide support and compensation.

[BigDog.]

Advice to those claiming compensation – always quote EU 261/2004 in your correspondence.

There is an instance noted on FlyerTalk where BA has offered compensation of £100 (£50 each for two people) in the form of e-vouchers, redeemable only with BA, that cannot be used in conjunction with Avios or points, and which expire within one year.

In the case above, the wait was for over 3 hours.

Quoting EU 261 should result in compensation in line with the directive which appears to be considerably more than the prevailing BA view. It also avoids you getting stuck with a rather restrictive e-voucher which you may not wish to use.

[Author]

Posts