Accidents et Incidents aériens

Début - Précédente - 138 - 139 - 140 - 141 - 142 - Suivante - Fin

Auteur	Message
xmadflyer Anonyme Inscrit le 02/03/2008 1 229 messages postés	# 27 octobre 2008 22:05
	Merci ! Sur le blog de James Wallace que vous indiquez, je relève les remarques de Tim Repp , ancien de Boeing. " As the guy who designed the auxiliary power unit installation on the 757 in the early 1980s, you'll have to explain to me why the APU wasn't started to provide limitless electrical power for the airplane for the duration of the flight. I read the NTSB prelim report, and it did not mention the APU at all. An APU can be started at any altitude using its own dedicated 24v battery, and once started, capable of providing 90 kVA (same as a single engine generator) until the airplane runs out of fuel. Yes, some non-essential electrical loads must be turned off when only one generator is operative, but that in no way would affect safety of flight. It is permissible to dispatch an airplane with an inoperative APU (and with inop thrust reversers), but nothing was mentioned in the NTSB's prelim report. Strange. The APU is the primary backup for main engine generator failures. Sounds like the flight crew needs some remidial training or the NTSB wasn't telling all.

Beochien Membre Inscrit le 13/02/2007 9 170 messages postés	# 28 octobre 2008 23:01
	La FAA fixe de nouvelles régles de sécurité pour survivre mieux a un éventuel attentat ! Du boulot pour les désigners !! ---------------- Extrait de Flight Global ----------------------- http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... sives.html FAA issues final rule to increase airliner explosives survivability By John Croft US FAA today issued a final rule that will require manufacturers of newly certified commercial aircraft after 28 November to protect passengers and cockpit crew from the effects of explosives or incendiary devices set off in flight. First proposed in January 2007, the rule will apply to aircraft that have a maximum certified takeoff weight of more than 45,359kg (100,000lb) or maximum passenger seating capacity greater than 60 people. Along with ensuring that cockpit doors can handle small arms fire or fragmentation devices, manufacturers will now be required to protect the flight deck and passenger compartment from smoke, fumes and noxious gases that could be released by an explosion. Included as well will be the designation of a "least risk bomb location" (LRBL) inside the aircraft, a location where a device, if discovered in flight, could be placed to protect flight critical structures and systems to the maximum possible extent if it were to detonate. Existing commercial aircraft of the same size and passenger carrying capacity must also have an LRBL designated by 28 November 2009, according to the rule. ---------- JPRS Paris _________________ JPRS

Beochien Membre Inscrit le 13/02/2007 9 170 messages postés	# 29 octobre 2008 13:33
	Il va bientôt falloir ouvrir un Topic spécial pour Qantas, ils font l'actualité (Surtout de leur presse) presque tous les jours ! Un 747 Quantas suit un avion NZ sur presque tout le Pacifique, et finalement se pose à Auckland, au lieu de melbourne, pour changer l'antenne du radar météo !! Petite cause et bien grands effets, il y à 40 ans, tous les avions n'avaient pas cette facilité !! Et cela ne les empêchait pas de traverser l'atlantique ! Pas besoin d'un radar météo pour faire sa route quand même ?? Des explications au pourquoi de tout ce cinéma ?? ----------------- L'article ---------------------- http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,2 ... 90,00.html Faulty equipment downs Qantas jets By staff writers, with Herald Sun and The Daily Telegraph October 29, 2008 04:14pm Air scares ... the two incidents are the latest in a string of events that have tarnished the Qantas brand / AFP QANTAS has been forced to bring down two planes in one day after they suffered equipment failure in mid-flight. The first incident saw a Qantas flight "piggyback" an Air New Zealand plane and divert to Auckland after its weather antenna stopped working three hours out of Los Angeles. In a rare and extraordinary sight, passengers awoke to a high-altitude dawn with a close-up view of the Air New Zealand jet off their left wing. Over 280 passengers on board flight QF12 arrived in Sydney four hours late after repairs to the aircraft in New Zealand. A Qantas spokesman said passengers were not in danger and the flight continued in safety to New Zealand. "The weather antenna wasn't working to their full satisfaction," the spokesman said. "They chose the safest option to divert to Auckland, which had preferable weather to other diversion options, coupled with the fact the Air New Zealand plane was there to provide guidance. "The aircraft were vertically separated at all time and governed by air traffic control." The Air New Zealand flight was 35km away from the Qantas plane when the captain made radio contact asking for assistance. The two planes came within a couple of thousand feet of each other as weather updates from the Air New Zealand flight were relayed across radio to the Qantas plane. In the time it took to arrive in Auckland, a replacement antenna was flown across the ditch from Sydney and used to repair the faulty antenna. JPRS Paris _________________ JPRS

etops Membre Inscrit le 28/04/2008 525 messages postés	# 29 octobre 2008 18:34
	Beochien a écrit :Petite cause et bien grands effets, il y à 40 ans, tous les avions n'avaient pas cette facilité !! Et cela ne les empêchait pas de traverser l'atlantique ! Pas besoin d'un radar météo pour faire sa route quand même ?? Des explications au pourquoi de tout ce cinéma ?? PRS Paris Hello ! Effectivement : petites causes grands effets ! Quelques " explications " : 1 - dans le doute ( ou l' absence ) sur le radar météo , on est démuni face aux éventuels zones orageuses . Très démuni ... se souvenir de l' incident d'un 747-400 ayant traversé le Front Inter Tropical sans radar météo et ayant subi de gros dégats humains ( mort d'un PAX suite de ses blessures . 2 - l' idée de suivre comme éclaireur ou " path finder " ( ah le Halifax !) un collègue est parfaite ... 3 - la judiciarisation extrème de nos sociétés ( surtout anglo-saxonne et sans humour ! ) fait que le moindre bobo interprêté comme une négligence du CDB , dans un tribunal, est courante et fait réfléchir ... 4 - Avant le décollage, l' " impasse technique " sur un radar météo restreint l' ETOPS à 120 mn. 5 - belle nostalgie, beochien que celle de la traversée du FIT sans radar et avec un verre de rouge en main .... mais c'est du " great old days " et ils n' en sont pas morts .... (Message édité par ETOPS le 29/10/2008 18h36)

alain57 Membre Inscrit le 08/03/2008 481 messages postés	# 29 octobre 2008 22:47
	un 777-300ER de plus qui se déroute pour une panne moteur . http://www.crash-aerien.com/www/news/ar ... mp;check=0 attérissage moteur droit coupé a budapest pour un 777-300ER Jet-Airways

Beochien Membre Inscrit le 13/02/2007 9 170 messages postés	# 29 octobre 2008 23:02
	Merci pour votre avis Etops ! Oui, un peu plus de paranoïa sécuritaire maintenant ! Bon, si ça se traduit par des stats positives .... Pour la réduction momentanée des etops, en cas de panne radar, je ne savais pas... mais ça paraît logique ! se mettre dans du mauvais temps peut faire perdre du temps ! JPRS Paris _________________ JPRS

Beochien Membre Inscrit le 13/02/2007 9 170 messages postés	# 29 octobre 2008 23:11
	Merci Alain ! Bon ... encore un GE 90-115 dans le sac ?? Peut être juste des PB de joints ou de raccords de tuyauterie .... Silence radio aussi sur le 777 Emirates de Manchester, c'est l'Omerta ! Bon s'il n'y à pas de Big Bang, de flammes, de fumées, ou du mitraillage de la queue ... et en plus les Pax qui sortent tout vert Cela restera au bénéfice du doute entre pépin majeur ou mineur ! Il nous manque du personnel sur place pour vérifier les temps d'immobilisation, qui pourraient être significatifs !! J'ajoute, que Manchester, ou Budapest, ce sont quand même des IFSD comptabilisés qui s'accumulent de nouveau ! Et je rajoute ! http://avherald.com/h?article=40f1d609 Incident: Jet Airways B77W near Budapest on Oct 29th 2008, engine shut down in flight By Simon Hradecky, created Wednesday, Oct 29th 2008 20:12Z, last updated Wednesday, Oct 29th 2008 20:12Z A Jet Airways Boeing 777-300ER, registration VT-JEB performing flight 9W-229 from Brussels (Belgium) to New Delhi (India) with 232 passengers and 14 crew, diverted to Budapest (Hungary) after the crew had to shut the right hand engine down due to dropping oil pressure. The landing at about 13:30 local (12:30Z) was safe. Engineers found an oil leak as cause of the oil pressure drop. JPRS Paris (Message édité par Beochien le 29/10/2008 23h19) (Message édité par Beochien le 29/10/2008 23h28) _________________ JPRS

Beochien Membre Inscrit le 13/02/2007 9 170 messages postés	# 30 octobre 2008 23:32
	Un avis FAA, fixation AR des moteurs des 737 NG inversées .... Bon, aprés le vérins de volets qui percent les réservoirs .... Beaucoup d'erreurs d'assemblage ! ----------------- Extrait Flight global --------------- http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... gines.html The US FAA is proposing that operators of nearly 500 US-registered Boeing 737 Next Generation (NG) aircraft inspect the twin-jet's aft engine mounts to determine if the centre link assembly mechanism is reversed, a problem originally thought to apply only to aircraft after having an engine removed and improperly reinstalled during maintenance. The new airworthiness directive (AD) would replace a 2003 AD requiring operators of 737NGs with serial number 1 - 1,277 to review maintenance records to determine whether an engine had been removed since the original manufacturing date, and if it had, to perform an inspection of the aft mount for correct installation. "Since we issued (the AD), the manufacturer informed us that it is possible that some centre links were incorrectly installed in an aft engine mount before the airplane was delivered," says the FAA. In fact, the agency says operators had reported that the centre link assemblies were found to be reversed on "several airplanes" that had never been removed. According to a Boeing spokeswoman, the airframer has received "a couple of reports" of the link being installed incorrectly. JPRS Paris _________________ JPRS

sevrien Anonyme Inscrit le 08/08/2006 10 923 messages postés	# 1 novembre 2008 11:56
	Une affaire d'Halloween ? Liens : http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingne ... ets-return Unruly passengers prompt jet's return Agence France-Presse First Posted 17:37:00 11/01/2008 SYDNEY, Australia -- A group of drunk passengers behaved so badly on an international flight their Australian jet returned to the tarmac just 30 minutes after take-off, the airline said Saturday. The Jetstar flight from the northern city of Darwin to Singapore turned back after a group of five men became "exceptionally rowdy," a spokesman for the budget airline said. .... ...... the captain initially intended to have security meet the group on the ground in Singapore, but decided to turn back when they did not settle. The five were met at Darwin airport by Australian Federal Police officers but it is understood no charges were laid. ------------------------------ *Et l'inconvénient pour les autres,..... et le coût de tout ça ?*

sevrien Anonyme Inscrit le 08/08/2006 10 923 messages postés	# 1 novembre 2008 16:33
	Enfin, .... un bon exemple de quelqu'un qui a le courage de mettre les pieds dans le plat ! Lien : http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... neers.html DATE:01/11/08. SOURCE:Flight International Accident reports slammed for ignoring engineers By David Learmount The ability of airlines to learn from accidents involving maintenance errors is severely compromised by the failure of investigators to include in their reports the salient details of the engineers or mechanics who made the mistakes, according to Philip Hosey of the International Federation of Airworthiness (IFA). *Il est à espérer qu'il n'y aura pas beaucoup de monde sur ce Forum qui soit prêt à défier David LEARMOUNT sur ce sujet !* An engineer on the technical committee of the IFA, Hosey notes the prolific information provided in accident reports on the pilots, including their licences, ages, medical records, flying hours - both total and on type, recent flying and training records, rest periods before flying, and many other facts. He contrasts that with the total lack of equivalent detail about the engineers involved or the circumstances associated with their work and the specific job on which the mistake was made. Speaking at the 28-30 October International Aviation Safety Seminar in Honolulu, shared by the IFA with the Flight Safety Foundation and the International Air Transport Association, Hosey said that all the data pertaining to pilots is faithfully recorded even when they played no part in the accident cause or outcome, whereas detail about the engineer's training, health, experience, background, working hours and other salient detail is almost always omitted in reports, even when maintenance error is involved. L'observation de Philip HOSEY est juste & pertinente. Hosey quoted only one recent report he was aware of in which all the appropriate detail about the engineer and his task was provided. C'est navrant ! He said it is remarkable that this difference in attention to the detail provided about two different professional groups in relation to accidents should exist, and it may be one of the reasons why managing the risk of error during maintenance receives less detailed attention than managing the risk of pilot error. *C'est clair !* Recording engineer working hours and patterns, including shift times and rest periods is at least as important as for pilots, Hosey argued, because the pilot's task can, at high-risk periods, generate adrenaline that can help overcome the effects of fatigue. An engineer's task does not benefit from an adrenaline burst toward the end of a long night shift, Hosey said. *Cela donne beaucoup de matière à réflexion, et devrait faire plaisir aux pilotes !*

Beochien Membre Inscrit le 13/02/2007 9 170 messages postés	# 1 novembre 2008 23:24
	Bonsoir, Pompé de Anet ! Les Pilotes du 737 Aeroflot Nord ! Tombé à Perm, en septembre, n'auraient pas été qualifiés pour l'avion ! De fausses qualifs ? Monstrueux ! A prendre avec des pincettes quand même, guère de confirmations d'autres sources pour l'instant ! Mais si c'est vrai ! Pas étonnant que Aeroflot ait largué sa "filiale" le lendemain ! -------------- L'Article du Moscow Times --------------- http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1010/42/372073.htm Perm Crash Pilots Used Fake Papers 31 October 2008The pilots of the Aeroflot-Nord jetliner that crashed during its approach to the Perm airport last month gave false information about their qualifications to fly, a top aviation safety investigator said Thursday. The damning comments by Gennady Kurzenkov, head of the State Aviation Inspection Service, appeared to confirm suspicion that pilot error was to blame for the Sept. 14 crash, which killed all 88 people on board. Kurzenkov said the pilots of the Boeing 737 had submitted false documents to the airline showing that they had passed preflight courses, Itar-Tass reported. He did not elaborate. The flight attendants also had false documents saying they were qualified to fly on international flights, he said. The Aeroflot-Nord flight was a domestic flight from Moscow to Perm. The crash was caused by "a lack of coordination by the crew and their insufficient preparation for flights," Kurzenkov said. Aeroflot-Nord officials could not be reached for comment after office hours Thursday. The airline has previously denied that its pilots lacked the necessary experience. Aeroflot-Nord is a subsidiary of state-owned Aeroflot. After the crash, Aeroflot banned all of its subsidiaries from using the airline's name and logo in an attempt to protect its reputation. Transportation Minister Igor Levitin has said the 737 had no technical problems and that both of its engines were in proper order before the flight. He also said there had been no midair explosion. Levitin's comments came after a crash investigator told Kommersant that the tragedy had been the result of pilot error due to inexperience. The plane burst into a ball of fire at an altitude of about 1 kilometer, apparently after an engine caught fire, scattering debris across an area of 10 square kilometers. The plane was making a second attempt at landing in difficult weather conditions. JPRS Paris _________________ JPRS

cacahuette Membre Inscrit le 26/11/2007 921 messages postés	# 1 novembre 2008 23:32
	Infos très rassurantes Beochien si elles sont vraies (Message édité par cacahuette le 01/11/2008 23h47)

Beochien Membre Inscrit le 13/02/2007 9 170 messages postés	# 1 novembre 2008 23:37
	Mouais, on attend toujours un démenti ?? _________________ JPRS

TRIM2 Membre Inscrit le 29/04/2007 601 messages postés	# 2 novembre 2008 12:07
	Beochien a écrit :Mouais, on attend toujours un démenti ?? Bonjour béochien, Eh oui, c'est ça l'URSS TRIM2

cacahuette Membre Inscrit le 26/11/2007 921 messages postés	# 2 novembre 2008 12:41
	L'URSS a été remplacée par la CEI puis la Russie si je ne dis pas de bêtises TRIM2

Début - Précédente - 138 - 139 - 140 - 141 - 142 - Suivante - Fin

Ajouter une réponse

Vous devez être inscrit et connecté sur AeroWeb pour pouvoir ajouter une réponse à ce sujet !