sundevil777 102 #1 May 18, 2009 A refueling boom operator/passenger on a flight from Chicago to Japan noticed a fuel leak, and the pilots are crediting him for saving their ass. I would really like to think they would not have continued out over the ocean, they do admit they were trying to figure out why they were using so much fuel. Great job by the passenger for pointing out the leak, but the pilots should not have needed the help to realize they should not proceed, and should have realized what they were sort of admitting, "they would never have made it to Japan if it wasn't for him." Perhaps the fuel quantity indication systems are so reliably unreliable that they would not have payed enough attention to what it was telling them. http://aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=276ba7c1-b28b-435d-bd81-4dc97c49ae2d&People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 May 18, 2009 Do you have a pilot certificate? Do you know what CRM is? Have you ever heard of an airliner going down because of a faulty indicator light? Believe it or not, yeah, that's happened. What I think the pilots are saying is that the guy was a valuable contributor to them not missing something that had the potential to kill them all. Not that he alone saved them because there are other indicators that should have warned them, but by him bringing it to their attention, they noticed it quicker and eliminated the possibility of them missing those indications. That's just good CRM or Cockpit Resource Management; using EVERYTHING you've got. As for me asking if you have a pilot certificate . . . man . . . if you only knew how unreliable some fuel gauges are! The ONLY time most of them are 100% accurate is when they're bone dry and at that point, it's kinda late. BTW, I recall a day I was pre-flighting at SNA and saw a Dr. Killer fly over just after take off. He was streaming fuel from an uncapped tank. I called the tower and they had the guy come back. He had been headed out to Catalina. He probably wouldn't have made it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #3 May 18, 2009 QuoteAs for me asking if you have a pilot certificate . . . man . . . if you only knew how unreliable some fuel gauges are! The ONLY time most of them are 100% accurate is when they're bone dry and at that point, it's kinda late. You make it sound like airliners have unreliable fuel gauges. I agree with you when it comes to small planes, but airliners (and business jets, high end helicopters, etc) have very accurate fuel gauges. Don't know if they get a warning/caution when fuel quantity is decreasing unusually fast. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pontiacgtp00 0 #4 May 18, 2009 Quote Do you know what CRM is? What is CRM? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
merino007 0 #5 May 18, 2009 CRM= Crew Resource Management. The cre is trained to use all resources available to them to get SA (situational awareness) on every situation. Passengers, ATC, other crew members etc CRM is hard to explain without having a little crew experience but it comes with time. I've had my ass saved plenty of times by the boom operator in the KC-10 by asking a simle question like why is that light on? I'm like Ohh shit it shouldn't be on!! Thanks! Everything in excess is bad... except skydiving and sex! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #6 May 18, 2009 For over 5 years I designed the flight deck switch panels (40 of the Boeing built panels such as on the overhead panel including the fuel management panel) for the Boeing 777, had a lot of interaction with the crew operations (the test pilot's group), and all of the various systems design groups. I got a lot of exposure to how the systems work and what the pilots are supposed to do about it. I also got a lot of exposure to how inaccurate the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) was on the 767, for instance, when they were introduced into service. It was so bad that the airlines were allowed to consider it inoperative and still fly because it wasn't on the minimum equipment list (MEL) unless you go far over water. That led to the infamous dead stick landing on the abandoned Canadian air force base incident. There was a big effort to improve the accuracy of the 777 FQIS and have it there at the beginning of service, part of that was accomplished with a very different method of measuring the tank levels (different type of sensors/better software) from what been standard practice on all the other Boeing models. Anyway, yes I know a lot about this stuff, even though I'm not a pilot. My point was that the pilots really should not have made it sound like they might have proceeded if it hadn't been for the passenger's warning. I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but you never know. As soon as they had indications of unexplained fuel loss, they should have been looking at the wings themselves, and even if they couldn't see it (such as if it was a leak from a center tank or whatever), it sounds like they should have planned on a diversion well before they did. But of course the story may be misreported, and I'd like to believe in the pilot's judgment better than it has been reported.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #7 May 18, 2009 My memory is that if there is an unexplained loss of fuel, that will be spotted by software that calculates the total fuel delivered to each engine as measured by the flow meters and checks if that matches the amount that is left in the tank. If there is enough of a discrepancy, I think the pilots are supposed to close the crossfeed valves that tie all the tanks together (feed each engine from only the one wing on each side), thus allowing the pilots to identify which tank(s) are leaking. I am interested to know if they actually were proceeding with this sort of check, hopefully they were, it shouldn't have taken long though, so who knows??? A flight from Chicago to Japan was likely on United, very likely a 777 (definitely not a 767 with 300+ people), so they really should have known to trust the FQIS and not be tempted to think it was a false indication.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #8 May 18, 2009 Nevermind my thought that it was probably a 777, the picture seems to show a substantial winglet, which I believe is still not available on 777s, so it was more likely a 747People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #9 May 19, 2009 Quote Quote As for me asking if you have a pilot certificate . . . man . . . if you only knew how unreliable some fuel gauges are! The ONLY time most of them are 100% accurate is when they're bone dry and at that point, it's kinda late. You make it sound like airliners have unreliable fuel gauges. I agree with you when it comes to small planes, but airliners (and business jets, high end helicopters, etc) have very accurate fuel gauges. Don't know if they get a warning/caution when fuel quantity is decreasing unusually fast. Dave Did you know that there is an acceptable fuel leak loss rate for an airliner? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #10 May 19, 2009 Quote Did you know that there is an acceptable fuel leak loss rate for an airliner? That sounds like the old maintenance joke. Pilot write-up to maintenance-"Engine #3 leaking oil." Maintenance response - "Engine #3 has normal amt. of leakage." Pilot write-up -"Engines #1, #2, and #4 lacking normal amt. of oil leakage." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #11 May 19, 2009 Pilot write-up to maintenance-Engine # 2 sounds funny... Maintenance response - Engine 2 told to be more serious. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #12 May 19, 2009 Quotethe picture seems to show a substantial winglet, which I believe is still not available on 777s, so it was more likely a 747 The 777 has raked wing tips which gives the same benefit of winglets so I dont think you will see winglets on the 777.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #13 May 19, 2009 QuoteDid you know that there is an acceptable fuel leak loss rate for an airliner? Depend where the leak is. Leak in the core cowl, surge tank, dry bay is a automatic no-go.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #14 May 19, 2009 Quote Did you know that there is an acceptable fuel leak loss rate for an airliner? The only acceptable leaks I'd heard about were these: (see streaks on top on inboard wing sections) http://www.vfp62.com/IMAGES_9/SR-71.jpg"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
