
An incident report from a BA Airbus that started with a simple error in the maintenance hangar and escalated dramatically.
( , Fri 7 Aug 2015, 21:31, Reply)

But of course 'planes have to do that too...
( , Fri 7 Aug 2015, 21:58, Reply)

you should be perfectly safe
( , Fri 7 Aug 2015, 22:14, Reply)

Or is there a lack of secondary level check to confirm that what the engineers think they've done is what they have actually done? Keeping the service log with the aircraft for the duration of the work would have been a start....
( , Fri 7 Aug 2015, 22:24, Reply)

Fair enough, if the maint crew had followed the AMM procedure and not left the cowls unlatched then there'd be no problem. I practically shouted "They do WHAT?" though when I read that the Maint Log is removed from the aircraft, without checking whether the checks are complete. Separating the log from the aircraft is just asking for trouble.
( , Fri 7 Aug 2015, 23:05, Reply)

They don't even remove the maintenance logs from our locomotives and loco's don't have the chance to fall out of the sky.....
Plus there is no way work would be carried out without warning notices in place, nor the loco left with work unfinished without warning notices on....
I just assumed aircraft maintenance would be far more stringent.
( , Sat 8 Aug 2015, 16:18, Reply)

( , Sat 8 Aug 2015, 1:30, Reply)

here's the sanitised "UK gov" version of events:
www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-report-1-2015-airbus-a319-131-g-euoe-24-may-2013
( , Sat 8 Aug 2015, 2:14, Reply)

assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/55a4bdb940f0b61562000001/AAR_1-2015_G-EUOE.pdf
A nice read on the crapper, thank you.
( , Sat 8 Aug 2015, 3:46, Reply)

...if you leave a door unlatched on a car there's both a visual and an audible warning, but not on a plane.
( , Sat 8 Aug 2015, 11:31, Reply)

a large handling staff or mandated visual inspections by the driver before each journey.
The latches were clearly not engaged - the photo showed that. Somehow that was missed at every possible stage.
( , Sat 8 Aug 2015, 12:15, Reply)

Outside, the air is at -50°C, travelling at Mach 0.85 (about 450 MPH). Inside you're next to an engine with a core spinning at 18,000RPM experiencing temperatures approaching 1000°C so there's a *lot* of radiant heat and high-frequency vibration. Now factor in low-frequency vibration from air turbulence, which is sufficient to move the tip of the wing by several feet relative to the fuselage.
Into this environment you're going to place a sensor capable of detecting whether a cowl door is displaced by several millimetres. The number of false alarms it will generate will exceed the number of genuine ones by several orders of magnitude.
Far better to have a maintenance procedure that removes the problem in the first place, and an inspection procedure to confirm, than to attempt to detect it remotely.
( , Sat 8 Aug 2015, 12:39, Reply)

bollocks to that attitude
( , Sat 8 Aug 2015, 18:39, Reply)

As recommended by the report.
( , Sat 8 Aug 2015, 21:12, Reply)

"The next radio call is in my top three statements I never want to hear from ATC: “You’ve left multiple engine parts and there was smoke as you left the runway at Heathrow.”"
( , Sat 8 Aug 2015, 12:44, Reply)