All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use. Login with Facebook. Remember Me? By logging into your account, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy , and to the use of cookies as described therein. Mark Forums Read.

Author:Mukora Kalkree
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):14 August 2016
PDF File Size:18.6 Mb
ePub File Size:16.93 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

If you wish to contribute or participate in the discussions about articles you are invited to join SKYbrary as a registered user. Medium to long range widebody airliner. The Boeing series includes the following modifications:. Passengers 3-class config. The tractor had been cleared to cross the active runway by ATC. The three maintenance personnel on board the aircraft as well as two observers on the ground were not injured but both engines and the aircraft sustained substantial damage from the fuel-fed fire which occurred as an indirect result of the failure.

The fire was located in the supernumerary compartment of the airplane. This compartment, which is present on some cargo airplanes, is located directly aft of the cockpit and forward of the main deck cargo compartment which is where the toilet, galley, and three non-flight crew seats are located see diagram below.

The flight crew evacuated the aircraft through the flight deck windows and were not injured, but the aircraft was substantially fire damaged and later classified as a hull loss. B, vicinity Busan Korea, On 15 April , a Boeing attempting a circling approach at Busan in poor visibility crashed into terrain after failing to follow the prescribed procedure or go around when sight of the runway was lost.

The Investigation attributed the accident to actions and inactions of the pilots but noted that the aircraft operator bore considerable contextual responsibility for the poor crew performance.

It was also concluded that ATC could have done more to manage the risk procedurally and tactically on the day and that ATM regulatory requirements did not adequately address risk. Sighting by both aircraft resulted in an accelerated crossing and a very low go around. The Investigation noted the twice-daily runway configuration change made due to noise abatement reasons was imminent.

It was also noted that airport procedure involved use of stop bars even on inactive runways and that their operation was then the responsibility of ground controllers. Both aircraft completed their intended flights without incident after which the damage was discovered, that to the requiring that the aircraft be repaired before further flight.

At the same time, a Boeing was stationary on taxiway Echo and waiting in line to depart from runway The left wing tip of the Boeing collided with the right horizontal stabiliser of the Boeing as the first aircraft passed behind. Both aircraft were on scheduled passenger services from Melbourne to Sydney. No one was injured during the incident. The Investigation found that the A had been instructed to park on a stand that was supposed to be blocked, a procedural requirement if the adjacent stand is to be used by a wide body aircraft and although this error had been detected by the stand allocation system, the alert was not noticed, in part due to inappropriate configuration.

It was also found that the pushback was commenced without wing walkers. It was found that the crossing clearance had been given by the same trainee controller who had then cleared the for take off after assuming that the towing traffic had cleared based on an unverified assumption based upon incorrect information which had been received earlier from an Assistant Controller. The conflict occurred with LVP in force and with visual surveillance of the runway from the TWR precluded by low cloud.

Meanwhile, another Boeing , operated by Japan Airlines, had been given landing clearance and was on approach to the same runway. After an incorrect readback, the Air Canada B entered the runway to line up. As a consequence of the runway incursion, the B on approach executed a go-around on the instructions of air traffic control.

There was no actual risk of collision. Both aircraft were being operated in accordance with conflicting air traffic clearances issued by the same controller. None of the three controllers present in the TWR including the Supervisor noticed the error until alerted by the aircraft rejected take off call. B, Addis Ababa Ethiopia, On 12 October , a Boeing commenced take-off at Addis Ababa in accordance with its clearance but rejected take-off at knots when the crew saw an obstruction ahead in the centre of the runway and it stopped approximately metres from a vehicle.

The Investigation found that the GND controller had cleared the vehicle to enter the runway, the TWR controller had given take-off clearance without first checking that that the runway was clear. It could not be established whether the GND controller had obtained TWR controller permission to grant the vehicle runway access.

None of the occupants were injured and there was no damage to the aircraft or conflict with other traffic or vehicles. The third rostered crew member had become incapacitated en route with the consequence that neither of the other pilots had been able to take any in flight rest. A successful emergency evacuation of the occupants was completed as a major fuel-fed fire destroyed the failed engine and substantially damaged the aircraft structure. The failure was attributed to an undetected sub-surface manufacturing defect which was considered to have escaped detection because of systemically inadequate materials inspection requirements rather than any failure to apply existing practices.

Safety issues in relation to an evacuation initiated by cabin crew following a rejected takeoff and fire were also examined. B, Copenhagen Denmark, On 24 August , a Boeing being operated by SAS on a scheduled passenger flight from Copenhagen to Tokyo was unable to get airborne from the take off roll on Runway 22R in normal daylight visibility and made a rejected take off from high speed. The aircraft was taxied clear of the runway and after a precautionary attendance of the RFFS because of overheated brakes, the passengers were disembarked and transported to the terminal.

There was minor damage to the aircraft landing gear and rear fuselage. B, Frankfurt Germany, On 20 August , at Frankfurt, while a Boeing was taxiing to its parking position, thick smoke developed in the passenger cabin. All passengers and the crew were able to leave the aircraft at the gate without further incident. The Investigation found that the management of the runway safety risk by the airport authority had been systemically inadequate and that the communication of what was known by ATC about the runway surface condition had been incomplete.

A number of subsequent corrective actions taken by the airport authority were noted. B, Luton UK, On 16 February , at Luton Airport, a Boeing B collided with the tug pulling it forward when the shear pin of the unserviceable tow bar being used to pull the aircraft broke.

The aircraft ran onto the tug when the ground crew stopped the tug suddenly. As result of the collision with the tug the aircraft fuselage and landing gear was damaged.

B, Manchester UK, On 25th November , baggage containers on a B, moved in flight causing damage to a cabin floor beam and damage to the standby system power supply cable causing electrical arcing. The aircraft landed safely at Manchester, UK, and the damage was only discovered during unloading.

The aircraft commander, who was the pilot not flying, consequently delayed the V1 call by about 10 - 15 because he thought the aircraft might be heavier than had been calculated. The commander applied full power and shortly afterwards the stick shaker activated briefly. The aircraft continued to climb away and accelerate before the flaps were retracted and the after-takeoff check list completed.

The appropriate drills in the Quick Reference Handbook QRH were subsequently actioned, fuel was dumped and the aircraft returned to Manchester for an overweight landing without further incident. B, Melbourne Australia, On 3 August , a Qantas Boeing encountered a large flock of birds during rotation and sustained multiple strikes on many parts of the aircraft.

Left engine vibration immediately increased but as reducing thrust also reduced the vibration, it was decided following consultation with maintenance to continue to the planned destination, Sydney. B, Montreal Quebec Canada, On 4 November , smoke began to appear in the passenger cabin of a Boeing which had just begun disembarking its passengers via an airbridge after arriving at Montreal.

The source was found to be a belt loader in position at the rear of the aircraft which had caught fire. Emergency evacuation using the airbridge only was ordered by the aircraft commander but cabin conditions led to other exits being used too.

The fire was caused by a fuel leak and absence of an emergency stop button had prevented it being extinguished until the airport fire service arrived. B, Singapore, On 12 July , a Japanese-operated Boeing deviated from its acknowledged clearance and lit-centreline taxi routing and began take-off from a parallel taxiway in good night visibility, crossing a lit red stop bar in the process.

When ATC observed this, the aircraft was instructed to stop which was achieved without further event. A subsequent take-off was uneventful. The crew did not report the event to their airline or their State authorities because the Captain "determined that this case did not need to be reported" and these organisations only became aware when subsequently contacted by the Investigating Agency.

B, Warsaw Poland, On 1 November , a Boeing landed at Warsaw with its landing gear retracted after declaring an emergency in anticipation of the possible consequences which in this event included an engine fire and a full but successful emergency evacuation. The Investigation attributed inability to achieve successful gear extension using either alternate system or free fall to crew failure to notice that the Battery Busbar CB which controlled power to the uplock release mechanism was tripped.

Gear extension using the normal system had been precluded in advance by a partial hydraulic system failure soon after takeoff from New York. The altimeter increase triggered an overspeed warning and the Captain reduced thrust and commenced a climb.

The resultant stall warning was followed by a recovery. B, en-route, Atlantic Ocean, On 28 January , the first officer on a B, flying from Toronto to London, became incapacitated and the captain elected to divert to the nearest airport, Shannon, Ireland.

B, en-route, New York NY USA, On 30 March , a Delta Airlines-operated Boeing which was 15nm southeast of New York JFK after departure from there and was being flown visually at night by the First Officer with an 'international relief pilot' as extra crew on the flight deck, achieved 66 degrees of right bank before any of the the pilots noticed.

A successful recovery was made with no consequences for the occupants and the aircraft then returned to JFK. B, en-route, North West Thailand, On 26 May , a Lauda Air Boeing experienced an un-commanded deployment of a thrust reverser climbing out of Bangkok which quickly led to a terminal loss of control and subsequent ground impact which destroyed the aircraft.

The cause of the PW thrust reverser fault was not established but it was noted that certification requirements included the ability to continue flight under any possible thrust reverser position and that there had been no pilot training requirement for, or awareness of, the essential response which would have required full aileron and rudder corrective action within 4 to 6 seconds. B, en-route, Northern France, On 9 January , a Boeing operated by United Airlines experienced an electrical systems malfunction subsequently attributed to arcing in a faulty electrical loom.

The crew elected to divert to London Heathrow where emergency evacuation was carried out on a taxiway upon landing. B, en-route, mid North Atlantic, On 14 January an Air Canada Boeing was midway across the Atlantic Ocean eastbound at night when the First Officer, who had just woken from an exceptionally long period in-seat rest, suddenly but erroneously perceived a collision risk from oncoming traffic and without warning intervened to dive the aircraft before the Captain could stop him causing 16 occupant injuries.

It was concluded that many Air Canada pilots did not understand the reasoning behind these procedures. B, en-route, near Ovalle Chile, On 2 January , a Boeing being operated by Air Canada on a scheduled passenger flight in day VMC from Toronto to Santiago, Chile was approximately nm north of the intended destination and in the cruise at FL when it suffered a run down of the left engine which flight deck indications suggested was due to fuel starvation. A MAYDAY was declared to ATC and during the subsequent drift down descent, with the cross feed valve open, the failed engine was successfully restarted and the flight was completed with both engines operating without further incident.

The airplane ecountered a flock of ducks about feet above ground level AGL resulting in the complete failure of the left engine. The crew was able to land the airplane safely. B, vicinity Gatwick UK, On 18 October , a Boeing encountered a flock of wood pigeons, at feet agl after take off from London Gatwick, and the ingestion of one caused sufficient distress to the left engine for it to be shut down and an air turn back made; it was subsequently concluded that the degree of damage caused was inconsistent with the applicable requirements of engine certification.

B, vicinity London Heathrow UK, On 1 September , a Boeing had a bird strike with a large flock of geese moments before touchdown at London Heathrow airport, causing substantial damage. ATC became aware that the was catching up with the but were aware that it was in visual contact and therefore took no action to ensure separation was maintained. No TCAS activation occurred. Only a query from approaching aircraft which had been cleared to land prompted by hearing a take off clearance being given for the same runway alerted ATC to the simultaneous runway use clearances.

The Investigation was unable to establish why the BN2 pilot failed to follow their conditional clearance but noted that the 'follow' clearance given onto final approach had not been accompanied by a sequence number, and when giving the aircraft type to be followed so that its sighting could be reported, the controller had not challenged the incomplete readback or repeated the aircraft type when subsequently issuing the clearance.

B, en-route, Audincourt France, On 23 August , a Boeing ER which had departed Zurich for a transatlantic crossing experienced a problem with cabin pressurisation as the aircraft approached FL and levelled off to run the applicable checklist.

However, despite being unable to confirm that the pressurisation system was functioning normally, the climb was then re-commenced resulting in a recurrence of the same problem and a MAYDAY emergency descent from FL The Investigation found that an engineer had mixed up which pressurisation system valve was to be de-activated before departure and that the flight crew decision to continue the climb had been risky.

Hidden category: Aircraft Family.






Related Articles