AA A300-600 Dispatch Reliability...

Not the Karl Orff wrote:

The electronics on either brand can give problems. Remember that it was
an electronics failure on the Air Canada 767 that led to the dead stick
landing north of Winnipeg.

You mean total lack of fuel?

Total. Complete. As in tanks empty.

The fuel sensing system failed on a previous flight. Through a series of
communication and procedural errors, maintenance managed to disable both
the main and backup systems, the fueler and the crew miscalculated the
amount of fuel provided, and dispatch, not knowing all of this, let them
go. Result: "out of gas" mid-flight.

In article ,
James Robinson wrote:

Not the Karl Orff wrote:

The electronics on either brand can give problems. Remember that it was
an electronics failure on the Air Canada 767 that led to the dead stick
landing north of Winnipeg.

You mean total lack of fuel?

Total. Complete. As in tanks empty.

The fuel sensing system failed on a previous flight. Through a series of
communication and procedural errors, maintenance managed to disable both
the main and backup systems, the fueler and the crew miscalculated the
amount of fuel provided, and dispatch, not knowing all of this, let them
go. Result: "out of gas" mid-flight.

Could happen on any a/c. e.g. the Air Transat A330 that also ran ot of
fuel over the atlantic due to overhaul error

Not the Karl Orff wrote:
Could happen on any a/c. e.g. the Air Transat A330 that also ran ot of
fuel over the atlantic due to overhaul error

There is a non trivial difference. The Gimli glider's first fault was "logic".
The gauges in the cockpit didn't work. Pilots and ground crew then made second
mistake during manual fueling.

The Transat was a mechanical fault (pump dumping fuel overboard due to broken
pipe) which should have been restricted to one side of plane had the pilots
followed Transport Canada recommendations for twin engine planes.
Unfortunatly, they opened the cross feed valve which allowed the remaining
fuel in the good wing to be pumped to the broken side and thus also be dumped
overboard. Computers not involved. But it was a good test of the ability to
operate a FBW aircraft without engine power.

In the gimli glider, overconfidence was their undoing. They proceeded even
though they knew they had faulty gauges and this was a brand new plane for them.

In the Transat case, the crew didn't know what was broken. They decided the
warning about one wing being much heavier than the other was more important
than recommendations to safeguard your remaining fuel at all costs by not
opening the cross feed valve.

Not the Karl Orff wrote:

The fuel sensing system failed on a previous flight.

Could happen on any a/c. e.g. the Air Transat A330 that also ran
out of fuel over the atlantic due to overhaul error

Yes, but it was an electronic failure on a Boeing product, which people
suggested never happened.

nobody wrote:

In the gimli glider, overconfidence was their undoing. They
proceeded even though they knew they had faulty gauges and this
was a brand new plane for them.

Not exactly. The aircraft arrived with one of two fuel measurement
systems operating. The aircraft didn't have the required parts for
repair, but their dispatch procedures would allow the aircraft to go
again with the one system, if the fuel levels were manually checked as a
backup. While the fuel was being manually checked to comply with the
operations manual, a maintainer managed to shut down both fuel
measurement systems. The aircraft should not have departed as it was.

The captain called the maintenance supervisor to report the gauge
problems, but the supervisor thought that one of the systems was still
operating, and that the manual check had confirmed everything, thereby
complying with their procedures. He therefore cleared the aircraft for
departure. The pilot knew the aircraft had arrived with inoperative
gauges, and when he was cleared to depart, thought that the supervisor
knew what he was doing, and didn't question it. (The minimum equipment
lists were not yet available to the pilots.)

Therefore, it wasn't overconfidence, but miscommunication and some
inadequacies in training. Overall, it was like many other accidents
where a long chain of events led to the fuel exhaustion. Had any single
link in the chain been broken then the incident would not have occurred.

"Not the Karl Orff" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Nik" wrote:


Well - I have several times on 747's...

except for engine issues, never happened to me on a Boeing or
NcDonnell-Douglas product

Don't mention the MD11....

Once it was because the 747 cargo door couldn't close. It took a few
hours...


Never on an Airbus though.

For me, it's Airbus electronics. On a NW flight (A320), electronics
gave out (one of the computers wasn't working) so the mechanics had to
reboot the aircraft. It took some voodoo work which involved playing
with some switches/fuses/circuit breakers in the panel above the forward
galley and they managed to restart only after an hour's delay.


I have heard about this, never experienced it though.


Nik.