EL AL Maintenance, Mechanical and Mishaps
Oct 15, 2014, 6:06 pm
#31
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,631
From your link:
<snip>
During descent, the indicator for one of the aircraft’s four engines (Engine 4) registered high vibration values. The flight crew wrote up a malfunction report. After the engine was inspected, the ground crew decided that the source of the high readings was an indicator malfunction. The aircraft took off from Heathrow about three hours later and headed back to Ben-Gurion Airport. Ten minutes into the flight, at 17,000 feet, the indicator registered a higher vibration than previously for the same engine. Six minutes later, at about 27,000 feet, the engine’s RPM indicator quickly fell to zero.
<snip>
In his investigation, Raz wrote: “The captain’s instinctive reaction following the cabin report of fire in the engine was to pull the fire handle of Engine 3 (another engine close to the malfunctioning one) and turn it off, which could have put the aircraft into an even more serious emergency situation, with two engines turned off on the same wing. The quick and decisive action of the first officer, together with the pilot’s recovery, stopped the process of turning off the engine.”
<snip>
“Still, the flight crew’s decision to return to Heathrow after the engine was turned off was correct and necessary under the circumstances. According to Boeing’s literature, the codes available to the crew for reporting the vibration malfunction contained no other option but to return to the airport of origin – but that option does not fully clarify the vibration phenomenon to the point where the technician was misled,” Raz writes further.
The engine malfunction stemmed from a failure that occurred when the aircraft banked, creating vibrations in the engine that increased until the final failure. “The reason for the failure that occurred when the aircraft banked, which is being investigated by the engine manufacturer, has not been precisely located, but it has been defined as unique and rare. The investigation of the incident was extended following prolonged contact with the aircraft manufacturer and the engine manufacturer that was imposed upon the chief investigator. The manufacturers wished to be actively involved in the investigation, and their investigation took a long time and was conducted from afar. The same applied to the response to the findings,” Raz wrote.
<snip>
During descent, the indicator for one of the aircraft’s four engines (Engine 4) registered high vibration values. The flight crew wrote up a malfunction report. After the engine was inspected, the ground crew decided that the source of the high readings was an indicator malfunction. The aircraft took off from Heathrow about three hours later and headed back to Ben-Gurion Airport. Ten minutes into the flight, at 17,000 feet, the indicator registered a higher vibration than previously for the same engine. Six minutes later, at about 27,000 feet, the engine’s RPM indicator quickly fell to zero.
<snip>
In his investigation, Raz wrote: “The captain’s instinctive reaction following the cabin report of fire in the engine was to pull the fire handle of Engine 3 (another engine close to the malfunctioning one) and turn it off, which could have put the aircraft into an even more serious emergency situation, with two engines turned off on the same wing. The quick and decisive action of the first officer, together with the pilot’s recovery, stopped the process of turning off the engine.”
<snip>
“Still, the flight crew’s decision to return to Heathrow after the engine was turned off was correct and necessary under the circumstances. According to Boeing’s literature, the codes available to the crew for reporting the vibration malfunction contained no other option but to return to the airport of origin – but that option does not fully clarify the vibration phenomenon to the point where the technician was misled,” Raz writes further.
The engine malfunction stemmed from a failure that occurred when the aircraft banked, creating vibrations in the engine that increased until the final failure. “The reason for the failure that occurred when the aircraft banked, which is being investigated by the engine manufacturer, has not been precisely located, but it has been defined as unique and rare. The investigation of the incident was extended following prolonged contact with the aircraft manufacturer and the engine manufacturer that was imposed upon the chief investigator. The manufacturers wished to be actively involved in the investigation, and their investigation took a long time and was conducted from afar. The same applied to the response to the findings,” Raz wrote.
<snip>
Oct 16, 2014, 1:30 am
#32
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: Executive Club: Gold - Flying Blue: Gold
Posts: 1,382
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.620915
According to the article,
"Failures among a crew of El Al pilots almost caused an extremely serious emergency during an incident at Heathrow Airport in London, attorney Itzhak Raz, the chief air traffic accidents investigator at the Transportation Ministry, revealed in a report released on Tuesday at the end of a two-year investigation. "
Another interesting quote:
“The flight crew did not act in the optimal or acceptable manner, starting when the malfunction occurred in the air. The captain performed several actions in the cockpit without notifying the first officer of his intentions and without obtaining confirmation for such actions from the first officer, as is required by the standards of teamwork,”
This is very troubling and further validates my opinion as to what this airline has become post privatization.
According to the article,
"Failures among a crew of El Al pilots almost caused an extremely serious emergency during an incident at Heathrow Airport in London, attorney Itzhak Raz, the chief air traffic accidents investigator at the Transportation Ministry, revealed in a report released on Tuesday at the end of a two-year investigation. "
Another interesting quote:
“The flight crew did not act in the optimal or acceptable manner, starting when the malfunction occurred in the air. The captain performed several actions in the cockpit without notifying the first officer of his intentions and without obtaining confirmation for such actions from the first officer, as is required by the standards of teamwork,”
This is very troubling and further validates my opinion as to what this airline has become post privatization.
Nov 9, 2014, 9:58 am
#34
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2005
Location: TLV/LHR
Programs: BA GGL, IHG Diamond Elite Amb, HH Diamond, Avis PC, Hertz PC, Sixt Platinum
Posts: 12,948
B737 operating LY347 to ZRH goes tech this morning...
Nov 11, 2014, 2:37 am
#37
Join Date: May 2000
Location: HFA
Posts: 1,712
LY358 from FRA "looses control during landing" last August
During landing, as a result of another aircraft declaring an emergency situation, LY358 was requested to climb and go around. The pilot in charge, a trainee, lost control, resulting in a stall of 36 degrees and low speed of 109 knots. The captain took over and the flight landed peacefully, but the report indicates several flaws in the operations of the crew. All according to this report (in Hebrew):
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/local/.premium-1.2482438
Shuly
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/local/.premium-1.2482438
Shuly
Nov 11, 2014, 2:33 pm
#38
Join Date: Aug 2012
Programs: UA 1K/MM, EK Gold, CX Silver
Posts: 880
I just read the whole report, and it is very frightening - it describes a chain of errors, loss of situational awareness (what mode the aircraft is operating in) and lack of communication in the cockpit (Captain, trainee (flying the aircraft), and first officer (observing).
The report recommends remedial training for all Israeli commercial pilots! But from what I have read, most of the aviation safety incident report recommendations are ignored. By the way, the cockpit recordings were erased (seems to happen very often), and the flight was reconstructed based on interviews and flight data recorder. Perhaps related to the erased recordings, the reports of the crew are in agreement, but differ from the facts recorded by the flight data recorder. (altitude setting during go-around for example).
The report recommends remedial training for all Israeli commercial pilots! But from what I have read, most of the aviation safety incident report recommendations are ignored. By the way, the cockpit recordings were erased (seems to happen very often), and the flight was reconstructed based on interviews and flight data recorder. Perhaps related to the erased recordings, the reports of the crew are in agreement, but differ from the facts recorded by the flight data recorder. (altitude setting during go-around for example).
During landing, as a result of another aircraft declaring an emergency situation, LY358 was requested to climb and go around. The pilot in charge, a trainee, lost control, resulting in a stall of 36 degrees and low speed of 109 knots. The captain took over and the flight landed peacefully, but the report indicates several flaws in the operations of the crew. All according to this report (in Hebrew):
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/local/.premium-1.2482438
Shuly
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/local/.premium-1.2482438
Shuly
Last edited by sabbasolo; Nov 11, 2014 at 2:39 pm
Nov 18, 2014, 9:37 am
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2005
Location: TLV/LHR
Programs: BA GGL, IHG Diamond Elite Amb, HH Diamond, Avis PC, Hertz PC, Sixt Platinum
Posts: 12,948
For the third time in a week ELAL passengers are removed from an aircraft going tech prior to takeoff.
This time it was LY075 to HKG last night.
My brother in law was on the flight (which left 4 hours late) and said the only positive thing about the delay was that when they switched the aircraft he got upgraded (TPL...).
http://www.themarker.com/news/aviation/1.2488335
This time it was LY075 to HKG last night.
My brother in law was on the flight (which left 4 hours late) and said the only positive thing about the delay was that when they switched the aircraft he got upgraded (TPL...).
http://www.themarker.com/news/aviation/1.2488335
Nov 18, 2014, 9:37 pm
#40
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: YYZ
Posts: 765
Flight canceled due to mechanical
From YYZ.
Flight LY030
Boeing 767-300
after about 5 different announcements regarding the new time of departure (6,7,8,9, 10 pm) until they canceled the flight due to mechanical issues.
People were pissed as usual, but what you gonna do?
Gonna cost them a pretty penny to park that plane till its repaired.
They could not guarantee when the new flight would take place.
Flight LY030
Boeing 767-300
after about 5 different announcements regarding the new time of departure (6,7,8,9, 10 pm) until they canceled the flight due to mechanical issues.
People were pissed as usual, but what you gonna do?
Gonna cost them a pretty penny to park that plane till its repaired.
They could not guarantee when the new flight would take place.
Nov 21, 2014, 1:00 am
#43
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2005
Location: TLV/LHR
Programs: BA GGL, IHG Diamond Elite Amb, HH Diamond, Avis PC, Hertz PC, Sixt Platinum
Posts: 12,948
Nov 22, 2014, 11:01 am
#44
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: YYZ
Posts: 765
They didnt really put up everyone up in hotels- only those on connecting flights from Toronto. The situation on the ground was not handled too badly-but the communication was poor.
Flight the next day was delayed, because the crew were missing for 1 an hour.
I guess the question is, seeing how this plane has an issue every few months (the last one being September, with the failure of one engine)how much longer can El Al afford to ignore this old plane.