gallois wrote:
there is no URL. I get a list of incidents every Sunday, I then click on the link and go directly to the REX.
Perhaps if you go to FFAREX and sign in you could set up a thread.
I guess you mean this one: https://rexffa.fr/PublicReport/Details/2748
That’s the one. I wont comment about the infraction that accompanied the engine failure. That’s for another thread.
That one appears to be straight carb icing. The commentator is however clueless when he says A temperature close to 0°C and high humidity are characteristic of conditions conducive to severe icing of the carburetor because carb icing is nothing to do with 0C… Thread.
Anyway, that one has nothing to do with the one we’re discussing here, a Twinkie has fuel injected engines.
greg_mp wrote:
But here we have 3 pilots.
So did AF447…. did not make it better but worse.
boscomantico wrote:
So, as sort of expected, it is now 99% sure it was a fuel supply problem.
I agree. Either the fuel is in the wrong place or not there at all. Looking at the fuel system of the Twin Commanche, it is not the most straightforward.
As someone else said as well, a strong indicator is that there was no fire.
Here we go again on AF447. I thought better of you Mooney. It was pitot icing on AF447 that was one of the holes in the Swiss cheese. 3 flight crew is pretty normal on long haul flights across all airlines. Whether it would have been better with just 1 or 2 crew, we will never know.
The Paris accident I would very much doubt had anything.to do with a frozen pitot tube.
When it comes to accidents I find this forum really weird. So much conjecture and guesswork, very little fact and so often wrong conclusions. Just read the thread re- the Nantes to Cardiff flight and its accident near Guernsey, before discovering it was probably carbon monoxide that caused the accident.
As I wrote we should be able to get the answer we seek first hand from the guy who was flying the plane. So why are you all guessing? Especially those who are 100% sure their guess is correct.
@Peter very high humidity and temperatures ranging from plus to minus 15 are the most likely to lead to severe carb icing but no one says it is only at those temperatures that it can occur.
The humidity of the air is the biggest guiding factor.
Answered same in the thread on carb icing so as to remain on topic here. No carbs on a Twincom.
gallois wrote:
When it comes to accidents I find this forum really weird. So much conjecture and guesswork, very little fact and so often wrong
I see the absolute contrary in this forum. Just look in other forums about how such discussions are done…
I said that according to statistics the most probable reason is fuel mismanagement. And that the fuel system is not so easy to operate. And then other possible failures were discussed but they do not seem as probable as fuel mismanagement. Guesswork and conjecture is not bad per se, because every accident is like a puzzle with information pieces and it’s interesting to get a picture of that. Or why do you condemn that? I don’t see wild speculation here or even accusations. No one knows everything. No one is putting the finger, the question that is open is: was it really that? With such an experienced crew? There must be more to it.
For me, discussion of accidents is on one side to find out what really happened, that’s like crime investigation. But also to get to know about possible failures that I would try to avoid.
UdoR wrote:
And then other possible failures were discussed but they do not seem as probable as fuel mismanagement.
No, it could be also poor maintenance – I know of one case where the crankcase breathers on both engines were incorrectly serviced which led to icing and one engine shutdown and the other engine running rough (pilot recognised the rough running early and descended). Or any other maintenance issue.
It could be fuel contamination.
There could be many reasons!
I’m afraid I agree with gallois that it is too early to make any reasonable assumptions in this case, especially keeping in mind that we don’t have access to the initial forensic report for the scene of in incident. Press reports could incomplete/biased. And for witness reports… In some countries in the east there is a saying “lying like a witness”. :)
My argument isn’t, as I have been at pains to write 2 or 3 times, is not about whether or not to debate the possible causes of an accident, in fact I agree it can be a good idea and educational to debate the various possibilities
However it is when pilots claim with 99% or 100% probability that they have the answers and as such declare themselves not open to other possibilities, despite the fact that so far we have had very little information on the cause.
gallois wrote:
Here we go again on AF447. I thought better of you Mooney.
I was countering the argument that 3 pilots make a difference as opposed to one. The issue is CRM not pitot icing. All I was trying to say is that 3 pilots in an airplane is no guarantee whatsoever that they will see something that one misses. Particularly in an airplane which is not multi crew nor where the crew on board have any sort of multi crew training.
While AF is one example of CRM gone bad there are plenty others where the lack of CRM have made a bad situation worse rather than that the sheer number of pilots would improve it. Clearly, there are also opposite examples like QF32, where the presence of 2 extra pilots was extremely helpful.
gallois wrote:
When it comes to accidents I find this forum really weird. So much conjecture and guesswork, very little fact and so often wrong conclusions.
That is the normal process when an accident occurrs. Where I fully agree with you however is, that it’s rubbish to claim to be “100% sure” as that is quite impossible. However, that scenarios are discussed which could have led to the accident is a normal thing even for professional investigators, who will come up with scenarios and try to disprove them one by one.
As you rightly say, the discussion of various scenarios can be beneficial not even only for avoidance of the one scenario which was proven to be the causal one, but also for others.
