KLM incident
Back to Forum- This topic has 13 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 26 Sep 2017
at 08:42 by FDOS_UK.
-
- Author
- Posts
- Skip to last reply Create Topic
-
TominScotlandParticipantKLM may have some questions to answer about maintenance……. Lucky escape on the ground.
24 Sep 2017
at 18:06
SwissdiverParticipantIndeed. And I guess the journalist never boarded a B777 given the picture used…
24 Sep 2017
at 21:39
TominScotlandParticipantFascinated that this has been of so little interest to BT and posters.
https://nltimes.nl/2017/09/25/klm-boeing-loses-hull-part-japan
Am I being over cynical in wondering whether, had it been another airline, we would have seen extensive responses on this Forum with reference to cost-cutting, out-sourcing, race for the bottom and kebab shops?
25 Sep 2017
at 15:45
FDOS_UKParticipant[quote quote=828363]Fascinated that this has been of so little interest to BT and posters.
https://nltimes.nl/2017/09/25/klm-boeing-loses-hull-part-japan
Am I being over cynical in wondering whether, had it been another airline, we would have seen extensive responses on this Forum with reference to cost-cutting, out-sourcing, race for the bottom and kebab shops?
[/quote]
A wing root panel helicoptered down and broke a car side window.
The root cause should (and no doubt will be investigated), but this type of incident is very frequent and almost a non-event.
Now, if they had taken off with the engine cowls unlocked on both sides, lost all four, ended up flying with an engine on fire over an area of dense population and then caused hours of delays by landing at a very busy airport, you might have seen more of a response.
Capice?
In other words, your positive BA bias is causing you to suffer from confirmation bias.
25 Sep 2017
at 17:52
nevereconomyParticipantA large chunk of airplane falling to the gound is not a non-event to me and I am sure would not be to you either, had you been its’ target, rather than a car window!
25 Sep 2017
at 20:07
wowzimmerParticipantHi FDOS_UK
I assume you are referring to BA762 in May 2013 – although of course, you could be referring to any number of other similar incidents. Indeed, in 2012, Airbus reported that there had been 32 similar incidents caused by the same reason. Even after additional safety protocols have been implemented, similar incidents have been reported around the world.
I might be wrong, however, as you mention four (engines?) – seeing that the A319 in question only has two.
I’d have to defer to an experts opinion about the pilots decision to fly over London in this case. But the official AAIB report doesn’t make any criticism or recommendation on this issue so I think I can safely say there is none.
As for whether the airport you’re going to land at is ‘busy’ or not preceding an emergency landing probably isn’t a factor in a pilots decision-making process when selecting the most appropriate airport.
Not quite sure I’d describe a random object falling off a plane as a non-event. It’s just that on this occasion the chain of events meant there wasn’t any further damage or injury.
25 Sep 2017
at 20:40
FDOS_UKParticipant[quote quote=828404]A large chunk of airplane falling to the gound is not a non-event to me and I am sure would not be to you either, had you been its’ target, rather than a car window!
[/quote]
I wrote ‘nearly a non event’, mainly because it happens frequently – it wasn’t a large chunk, it was a panel
about 60cm x 90cm.Obviously, it would not be trivial if someone was hit by a falling object, be it from the top of a building or from an aircraft, but entropy fortunately means there is rarely any damage to people.
25 Sep 2017
at 20:52
FDOS_UKParticipant[quote quote=828408]Hi FDOS_UK
I assume you are referring to BA762 in May 2013 – although of course, you could be referring to any number of other similar incidents. Indeed, in 2012, Airbus reported that there had been 32 similar incidents caused by the same reason. Even after additional safety protocols have been implemented, similar incidents have been reported around the world.
TominScotland decided to involve BA in this thread – I was putting his comment into perspective.
I might be wrong, however, as you mention four (engines?) – seeing that the A319 in question only has two.
But how many cowl flaps does an engine have? Clue, it’s a number between 3 and 5.
I’d have to defer to an experts opinion about the pilots decision to fly over London in this case. But the official AAIB report doesn’t make any criticism or recommendation on this issue so I think I can safely say there is none.
Where did I criticise the pilots? For the avoidance of doubt, I have a pilot’s licence and I defended their actions on the thread on here – go have a look. My comment was that there might have been more response if KLM had flown an aircraft with an engine fire over a densely populated area and then caused a major airport to be closed for a few hours.
As for whether the airport you’re going to land at is ‘busy’ or not preceding an emergency landing probably isn’t a factor in a pilots decision-making process when selecting the most appropriate airport.
No, it isn’t, but the point is completely irrelevant to why KLM have not received much comment on here.
Not quite sure I’d describe a random object falling off a plane as a non-event. It’s just that on this occasion the chain of events meant there wasn’t any further damage or injury.
I didn’t say it was a non-event, I said ‘nearly a non-event’. Stuff falls from aircraft quite regularly, whether it is small panels or blue ice. Sometimes it’s a dead body, that is definitely an event.
[/quote]
25 Sep 2017
at 21:02
FDOS_UKParticipantFor those who are not aware, here is a report about the 187 objects that fell to earth from aircraft in a 5 year period
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/10040982/Parts-break-off-aeroplanes-mid-flight.html
25 Sep 2017
at 21:06 -
AuthorPosts