AA 757 rolls off the end in ORD
10-25-2008, 03:27 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: Retired 121 pilot
Posts: 1,033
-------------------------------------------
By Alan Levin, USA TODAY
The pilots had switched to battery power shortly after leaving Seattle when electrical problems developed. The batteries last for about 30 minutes, but the pilots continued toward their destination until the jet's electrical systems began failing about an hour and 40 minutes later.
--------------------------------------------
Makes me scratch my head.
10-25-2008, 03:57 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,918
Here's a relevant portion of what I read from USA Today - on-line. I have not been able to find anything else on this point. I would hope USA Today is wrong.
-------------------------------------------
By Alan Levin, USA TODAY
The pilots had switched to battery power shortly after leaving Seattle when electrical problems developed. The batteries last for about 30 minutes, but the pilots continued toward their destination until the jet's electrical systems began failing about an hour and 40 minutes later.
--------------------------------------------
Makes me scratch my head.
-------------------------------------------
By Alan Levin, USA TODAY
The pilots had switched to battery power shortly after leaving Seattle when electrical problems developed. The batteries last for about 30 minutes, but the pilots continued toward their destination until the jet's electrical systems began failing about an hour and 40 minutes later.
--------------------------------------------
Makes me scratch my head.
There is a lot more to this incident than what USA Today is (misleadingly) reporting. They did not "switch to battery power shortly after leaving SEA." That little gem happened about 1:40 before landing in ORD. They had a contactor failure, not a double gen failure. They had no idea about the magnitude of the failures, all they could do was follow the QRH for the advisory messages/caution lights they were getting. Most importantly, they did not realize their battery charger was out. This was very similar to the UAL 767 from Sao Paolo to MIA that diverted to Bogota with multiple electrical problems.
Ask yourself, is there any pilot out there who would continue a transcon on battery power only?
10-25-2008, 06:06 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 6,009
If memory serves me correct... like the B-737 and the 747-400... when the Stanby Power Switch is in BATT, the battery charger is not in the "Charge Mode".
10-25-2008, 08:58 AM
#54
Snakes & Nape
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: B-767 Captain
Posts: 775
American # 268
8LatRB: Thanks for posting the NTSB preliminary report.
Purpleanga: Please read the report. What was "reported" by USA Today(Useless Today) was inaccurate and taken out of context by their staff. I have met Mr. Levin (USA Today staff writer) and I believe he contributed to the piece that was published. It doesn't surprise me that he can't accurately report an aircraft accident correctly.
Captjns: I'm pulling out my CD-ROM systems disc to check but on most B-757's, when one selects the BAT position, the only change is the power source for the STBY AC and STBY DC busses. In theory, with everything working "normally", one could select BAT in flight and everything would be powered normally because the battery charger would be powering the HOT BAT BUS and the BAT BUS. Normally, the stand-by power selector is in the AUTO position and the STBY AC BUS is powered by the Left transfer BUS and the STBY DC BUS is powered by the Left DC BUS.
In the configuration that we fly, the APU BAT and the MAIN BAT are wired in parallel and so the crew has 90 minutes of electrical power when a true stand-by power situation exists. That, in my opinion, is worth the maintenance costs alone. Keep in mind, on AA # 268, I don't believe they had any indication that the BAT charger was not supplying power to the HOT BAT BUS/BAT BUS. I believe that the MAIN BAT discharge light would be illuminated as the BAT is discharging but how does one know the BAT charger isn't working properly.
I don't work for American, but I'll still buy the lads a cold one for a job well done.
G'Day Mates
Purpleanga: Please read the report. What was "reported" by USA Today(Useless Today) was inaccurate and taken out of context by their staff. I have met Mr. Levin (USA Today staff writer) and I believe he contributed to the piece that was published. It doesn't surprise me that he can't accurately report an aircraft accident correctly.
Captjns: I'm pulling out my CD-ROM systems disc to check but on most B-757's, when one selects the BAT position, the only change is the power source for the STBY AC and STBY DC busses. In theory, with everything working "normally", one could select BAT in flight and everything would be powered normally because the battery charger would be powering the HOT BAT BUS and the BAT BUS. Normally, the stand-by power selector is in the AUTO position and the STBY AC BUS is powered by the Left transfer BUS and the STBY DC BUS is powered by the Left DC BUS.
In the configuration that we fly, the APU BAT and the MAIN BAT are wired in parallel and so the crew has 90 minutes of electrical power when a true stand-by power situation exists. That, in my opinion, is worth the maintenance costs alone. Keep in mind, on AA # 268, I don't believe they had any indication that the BAT charger was not supplying power to the HOT BAT BUS/BAT BUS. I believe that the MAIN BAT discharge light would be illuminated as the BAT is discharging but how does one know the BAT charger isn't working properly.
I don't work for American, but I'll still buy the lads a cold one for a job well done.
G'Day Mates
10-25-2008, 09:35 AM
#55
VHR-very happily retired
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: Retired
Posts: 1,426
8LatRB: Thanks for posting the NTSB preliminary report.
Purpleanga: Please read the report. What was "reported" by USA Today(Useless Today) was inaccurate and taken out of context by their staff. I have met Mr. Levin (USA Today staff writer) and I believe he contributed to the piece that was published. It doesn't surprise me that he can't accurately report an aircraft accident correctly.
Captjns: I'm pulling out my CD-ROM systems disc to check but on most B-757's, when one selects the BAT position, the only change is the power source for the STBY AC and STBY DC busses. In theory, with everything working "normally", one could select BAT in flight and everything would be powered normally because the battery charger would be powering the HOT BAT BUS and the BAT BUS. Normally, the stand-by power selector is in the AUTO position and the STBY AC BUS is powered by the Left transfer BUS and the STBY DC BUS is powered by the Left DC BUS.
In the configuration that we fly, the APU BAT and the MAIN BAT are wired in parallel and so the crew has 90 minutes of electrical power when a true stand-by power situation exists. That, in my opinion, is worth the maintenance costs alone. Keep in mind, on AA # 268, I don't believe they had any indication that the BAT charger was not supplying power to the HOT BAT BUS/BAT BUS. I believe that the MAIN BAT discharge light would be illuminated as the BAT is discharging but how does one know the BAT charger isn't working properly.
I don't work for American, but I'll still buy the lads a cold one for a job well done.
G'Day Mates
Purpleanga: Please read the report. What was "reported" by USA Today(Useless Today) was inaccurate and taken out of context by their staff. I have met Mr. Levin (USA Today staff writer) and I believe he contributed to the piece that was published. It doesn't surprise me that he can't accurately report an aircraft accident correctly.
Captjns: I'm pulling out my CD-ROM systems disc to check but on most B-757's, when one selects the BAT position, the only change is the power source for the STBY AC and STBY DC busses. In theory, with everything working "normally", one could select BAT in flight and everything would be powered normally because the battery charger would be powering the HOT BAT BUS and the BAT BUS. Normally, the stand-by power selector is in the AUTO position and the STBY AC BUS is powered by the Left transfer BUS and the STBY DC BUS is powered by the Left DC BUS.
In the configuration that we fly, the APU BAT and the MAIN BAT are wired in parallel and so the crew has 90 minutes of electrical power when a true stand-by power situation exists. That, in my opinion, is worth the maintenance costs alone. Keep in mind, on AA # 268, I don't believe they had any indication that the BAT charger was not supplying power to the HOT BAT BUS/BAT BUS. I believe that the MAIN BAT discharge light would be illuminated as the BAT is discharging but how does one know the BAT charger isn't working properly.
I don't work for American, but I'll still buy the lads a cold one for a job well done.
G'Day Mates
10-25-2008, 10:53 AM
#56
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 70
"The captain then assisted the first officer on the flight controls and the approach to land was continued." (NTSB)
The Co-Pilot Landed? If so, is that standard in emergencies at AA?
Not to sound condescending, and I'm not rated in the 757, but it does have some sort of DC meter? The one in my Champ immediately shows me Battery Condition and Charging/Discharging status.
The Co-Pilot Landed? If so, is that standard in emergencies at AA?
Not to sound condescending, and I'm not rated in the 757, but it does have some sort of DC meter? The one in my Champ immediately shows me Battery Condition and Charging/Discharging status.
10-25-2008, 11:03 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,497
On the 767 (I'm guessing 75 is similar) you do lose the battery chargers when selecting BAT position on the stby power selector. The APU battery will also supply power which is probably why it went so long. There are no DC meters.
10-25-2008, 01:37 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,918
Correctomundo. Except for the APU battery - AA 757s have the APU battery, but it is not hooked up "in parallel" with the main battery. The reason the battery lasted so long was because there was simply not very much electrical draw at cruise.
10-25-2008, 01:42 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,947
Reason is, we all know both pilots know how to fly the plane. In fact the FO might even have much more time in type than the captain. So the one who is the final responsibility of the flight and managing the whole situation can sit back and take it all in while the other pilot takes care of flying the plane and perhaps taking on additional tasks like working the radios while the captain works on the problem and coordinating with the company and cabin crew.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
