Advertisement
NTSB: No actual smoke in United A320 runway excursion incident
US National Transportation Safety Board said the United Airlines Airbus A320 that exited a New Orleans runway when making an emergency landing on April 4 did not experience smoke in the cockpit but rather an apparently false automated smoke warning followed by system disruptions.
The UA flight was headed from MSY to San Francisco when the pilots declared an emergency just 20 min. after takeoff. Upon landing at MSY, the aircraft's nose wheel exited the side of the runway (ATW Daily News, April 6). No injuries among the 109 passengers and crew were reported.
Initial reports indicated the emergency was triggered by smoke in the cockpit. But an NTSB preliminary report issued late Thursday said that, while an automated smoke warning message was provided by the A320's ECAM system along with instructions to land, there is no evidence of actual smoke.
"The preliminary examination has not revealed any signs of burning, indications of smoke or other anomalous system findings," NTSB stated, adding, "Despite receiving [the ECAM] message, neither crew member recalled smelling smoke or fumes during the flight."
But an emergency was declared after "the first officer's display screens went blank, the ECAM messages disappeared, the cockpit to cabin intercom stopped functioning, and the air-driven emergency generator deployed," according to NTSB. "Preliminary reports provided to investigators suggest that the flight attendants did not smell or see smoke in the cabin, but observed the cabin lights turn off and the intercom system cease to function during the flight."
Latest Webinars
Latest From Twitter
Latest News
Advertisement
ATW SmartLinks
Most Popular
Most Emailed
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Browse Back Issues
New and Notable
Resource Center
Check out the latest industry information from market leading companies.
More ATW
© 2012 Penton Media, Inc.
Discuss this news 4
Unfortunately, we will
By MountainUnfortunately, we will continue to see incidents like this. The fancy electronics have gotten way out of hand at the expense of simplicity. These planes were designed by engineers for engineers, instead of pilots.
This article emphasizes the
By Jim StevensonThis article emphasizes the need for a solution to smoke in the cockpit. Obviously there are many cases where the pilots were able to land because they were either (1) close to an airport prior to the smoke becoming so bad they could not see, or (2) the smoke was a one-time or intermittent event.
What I find most disturbing is that the FAA, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and senior military VIPs fly around with equipment that would permit their pilots to land if the smoke were continuous. Why doesn't the FAA mandate such equipment?
I think the passenger-carrying airlines should take a lesson from the decision UPS made.
There is a reason it is
By JohnnyThere is a reason it is called the "Scaerbus".
With the incidents of smoke
By Jim StevensonWith the incidents of smoke in the cockpit increasing, with the recent UPS decision to equip its entire fleet with smoke displacement technology after the Dubai crash in September 2010, with the US Federal Aviation Administration flying with this same technology, and with the secretaries of the US Department of Transportation and US Homeland Security flying with it, one wonders why the airlines on their own account or the US government as regulators, have not insisted on the installation of this equipment on aircraft that the public flies. Information about the equipment is readily available (www.smokeinthecockpit.com or www.visionsafe.com). The 10-year cost for the equipment is pennies per ticket segment.
A Chicago-based leasing company was sued and settled for more that $150 million because it leased an airplane involved in a fatal crash that the pilots could have avoided if the plane had been leased with the latest safety equipment. It seems like just a matter of time until airlines, leasing, and financial institutions are sued for failing to have this Emergency Vision Assurance System or EVAS on board.
The recent unscheduled April 4, 2011 landing by United Airlines flight 497 began because of a warning: smoke in the cockpit. The warning turned out to be false and smoke never emerged. Nevertheless, the mishap illustrates the point: the pilots needed precision approach radar vectors from approach control because the electricity went out and the pilots could not see their instruments. The result would have been identical if they actually had smoke in the cockpit except for one item: the vectors would have helped them arrive close to the airport but they would not have had visibility out the cockpit window. EVAS would have allowed them to see to land.
Post new comment