Loss of GEN BUS 2: QRH: Land at nearest suitable airport

[krazyk 157]

From the checklist. As a pilot you have to ensure the safety of your vehicle. If it says in the checklist that you should divert than you are forced to follow the checklist. If you land nobody can say "Why did you land? You broke a rule!" It is your job to follow the checklist. If you land and it actually was nothing wrong the company might get mad but that is their fault for having the wrong checklist, they can not sue the pilot for burning unnecessary fuel since it said to land in their papers. You can get in deep sh*t if you continue to fly and bad stuff happens though.

I admit that i am not a pilot but I am learning to be a maritime officer (ship captain) and the laws sometimes are surprisingly similar.

 

In this case the checklist is from McDonnell Douglas so I guess they chose the safer option. A company might have changed the info to something else.

 

+1! Couldn't have asserted the importance of following a checklist any more.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

From the checklist. As a pilot you have to ensure the safety of your vehicle. If it says in the checklist that you should divert than you are forced to follow the checklist. If you land nobody can say "Why did you land? You broke a rule!" It is your job to follow the checklist. If you land and it actually was nothing wrong the company might get mad but that is their fault for having the wrong checklist, they can not sue the pilot for burning unnecessary fuel since it said to land in their papers. You can get in deep sh*t if you continue to fly and bad stuff happens though.

I admit that i am not a pilot but I am learning to be a maritime officer (ship captain) and the laws sometimes are surprisingly similar.

 

In this case the checklist is from McDonnell Douglas so I guess they chose the safer option. A company might have changed the info to something else.

 

There is no direct legal requirement for me to divert.  Granted, an approved airline op spec is essentially an extension of the FARs, so it could then be inferred that it's a legal requirement to follow the op spec, but I still stand my ground for two reasons:

 

1 - FAR 91.3a: The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

 

2 - The QRH states: Land at the nearest suitable airport

 

Suitable, as it is never really defined by the QRH, is highly subjective.  Sure, I could land at Thule, or Reykjavik, because the runway length meets what I need, but will the facilities?  Just because an airport has a runway long enough, or the tarmac space doesn't mean it's suitable.  Granted, this example is from a situation of a different nature (weather/delays), but JBU504 is a shining example of that.  I can put the plane on the ground, but will I receive the help that I need?

 

As BGTL, BIRK, and the rest in that area are often used as en route alternates, they probably have resources set aside for just that, but I still question 'suitable' to the nature of the incident.  Suitable to the nature of the incident would be a field at which I could have the aircraft properly inspected, fixed and sent on my way.  If the incident were more severe, requiring more immediate attention, then sure, I'd divert.

 

Granted, the latitude given by FAR 91.3a is a double-edged sword, as PIC actions may be questioned by the Agency, but the end decision is in the hands of the PIC as to what is most suitable.  In my case, for the reasons stated, the nearest suitable airfield is my destination.  If the failure becomes more severe, options will be reconsidered.

 

 

 

...you're right, though, that the regs are often similar.  Most of aviation rules were "stolen" from nautical rules:

Red/green nav lights, right of way rules, the port of the word nautical to "aeronautical," etc.

[19AB67 16]

 

talk to Maintenance.  They would know more about what could have caused those warnings.

 

Hmm, what would they know?

Something of (German) 'Verschlei/3', what is the right translation? ... wearing, wearout, attrition?

What does it help during flight? 

 

I think the pilot's assessment is best in the described circumstances and avoiding icing conditions. 

 

 

How could forget in this discussion AF447 GIG-CDG? 

 

For sure afterwards we are all smart, and in a sealed cockpit environment you have to rely on your instruments. 

But what I really don't understand (other people could refrain from using the plane mistrusting the pilots' abilities), that the whole crew was seemingly not aware that they were plunging into the Atlantic! 

Why don't they learn to fly the aircraft almost only with the artificial horizon? 

If at cruising altitude the healthy window of appropriate IAS is small, descend to e.g FL300, set 80-90% of thrust and keep the plane in the air? 

I think the reports on AF447 state that the pilots did not follow predefined procedures. Why not? Were they not aware of imminent danger? Between stall and overspeed I choose overspeed... Nose down! This you learn as basics... 

 

If pilots of well-known airlines don't know the basics anymore in the clean glass cockpits, I am more than puzzled. Whom to trust? 

[PHXMD-11 86]

Hmm, what would they know?

What does it help during flight? 

 

Maintenance could help the crew diagnose problems. Dispatch/operations could also assist the crew in planning a diversion.

 

Concerning the AFR crash, I think I remember reading that the captain (sitting in a jumpseat) and the relief FO were aware they were stalling and the FO didn't know what he was doing.

[hopskip 253]

Maintenance could help the crew diagnose problems. Dispatch/operations could also assist the crew in planning a diversion.

 

Concerning the AFR crash, I think I remember reading that the captain (sitting in a jumpseat) and the relief FO were aware they were stalling and the FO didn't know what he was doing.

One of the sidesticks was fully aft (pulling back as hard as possible) for several minutes in the stall.

 

They did of course, encounter severe icing (and didn't have a pre-existing pitot heat failure before entering the icing conditions). There was forecast lines of thunderstorm clouds with tops well into the FL4xx's.

 

So to compare a perfectly normally functioning A330 on ETOPS entering high level CB with known Icing and loosing it's Pitot data and stalling due to incorrect use of the flight controls is quite different to a 3 or 4 engine aircraft loosing one electrical generator in CAVOK with clear weather ahead and no reported ICING while flying a NAT track.

 

Now checking out WHY that generator offline is of upmost importance. If it was an engine problem is different to an electrical short.

 

Here's a story of a 747-400 (4 engines and electrical generators) which had an incident where a water leak caused ALL FOUR electrical busses to short, leaving the aircraft with 4 perfectly working engines, and only Battery power to run the cockpit on.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/307604-qantas-b744-total-electrical-failure.html

 

Obviously the urgency of "one engine generator unit failed due to a spanner being left in the spinny thing last maintenence cycle" is different to "A water leak shorted out one system and the other 2 are just a matter of time before they go out too!"

 

Also "Our Auxilary Pitot Heat is not functioning but it's CAVOK all the way till we land" is different from "Our Auxilary Pitot heat is not functioning and there's CB at FL400 on our flight path with moderate icing being reported"

 

How about this scenario:

"Auxilary pitot heat is not functioning, We are at 51N40W heading east to EHAM, weather over all of eastern Canada is cloudy and snow temps around -1°C. Greenland is effectivley shut because of snow and visibility of 1/4 mile, temp -9°C, Unbroken overcast over all of the atlantic ocean at 8000ft to FL245 including Iceland (Temp +1°C) and Ireland (all airports below 8°C). The Azores report 9°C with cloud overcast 800ft, broken 1200ft. Airspace and all airports between London and Amsterdam is CAVOK and between 15°C to 18°C.

 

Destination is EHAM. Where do you divert to? Through the known icing conditions to land during snowfall in Canada? Greenland on a Cat 3 which is way down to minimums maybe even worse and snowing? Fly to the Azores even though the runway is technically too small for you, and there is potential icing from FL245 down? or into CAVOK EHAM?

 

I'd "Divert" to my actual destination in this case. No reason to stop over at massivley congested EGLL and go into holding for 45 minutes when I can just overfly it and go home and probably be on the ground faster than being put into a hold over biggin and then vectored all around london for 20 minutes. Heathrow has 2 runways, Amsterdam has ... lots. Rwy 18 L/C/R, not to mention 27, 24, 06, 09, etc.  CAVOK, Temps nice and warm, Home base so maintenence isn't a problem... no need to run a CAT3 in known icing to a tiny airport that isn't equipped to deal with MD11 maintenence problems.

 

Now if we were looking at potential shorts of all of the other electrical Gens, the decision might change. If another one goes down, leaving only 1, then obviously the decision will be different. etc)

 

If you'v just recieved information that your pitot heating (anti-ice) is potentially degraded... I'd make avoiding icing conditions a factor in any decision I'd be making. Avoiding icing might even be higher in the priority list than getting on the ground quickly.

 

To say "We need to land ASAP, let's go into Greenland on a CAT III ILS approach down to minimum visibility in known icing with snow at -9°C to an airfield with no jetbridge, and which hasn't seen an MD11 since 1995 let alone fixed one, just because our Auxilary Pitot heat designed for anti-icing purposes has failed." in response to a "land at nearest suitable airfield" statement on the QRH would be poor decision making.

[Fabo 213]

Is there a book for MD-11 similar to the 737 Management Reference Guide?

 

I was told by a 737 captain that he does not enter flightdeck without his copy, as it helps him exactly with this process. If there is a vague "Land at nearest suitable", or "continue to destination" in the QRH, he can take a look at a more in depth explanation on what has happened and why should he do what he should do, and might help a fair bit in deciding what exactly is that "suitable" airport... For example, if you had a total electric failure, you would find the first one-mile-long strip to put the plane down on, if you had a total hydraulic failure, you better have at least two, better three...

[sandpatch 9]

There is no direct legal requirement for me to divert.  Granted, an approved airline op spec is essentially an extension of the FARs, so it could then be inferred that it's a legal requirement to follow the op spec, but I still stand my ground for two reasons:

 

1 - FAR 91.3a: The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

 

2 - The QRH states: Land at the nearest suitable airport

 

Suitable, as it is never really defined by the QRH, is highly subjective.  Sure, I could land at Thule, or Reykjavik, because the runway length meets what I need, but will the facilities?  Just because an airport has a runway long enough, or the tarmac space doesn't mean it's suitable.  Granted, this example is from a situation of a different nature (weather/delays), but JBU504 is a shining example of that.  I can put the plane on the ground, but will I receive the help that I need?

 

As BGTL, BIRK, and the rest in that area are often used as en route alternates, they probably have resources set aside for just that, but I still question 'suitable' to the nature of the incident.  Suitable to the nature of the incident would be a field at which I could have the aircraft properly inspected, fixed and sent on my way.  If the incident were more severe, requiring more immediate attention, then sure, I'd divert.

 

Granted, the latitude given by FAR 91.3a is a double-edged sword, as PIC actions may be questioned by the Agency, but the end decision is in the hands of the PIC as to what is most suitable.  In my case, for the reasons stated, the nearest suitable airfield is my destination.  If the failure becomes more severe, options will be reconsidered.

 

 

 

...you're right, though, that the regs are often similar.  Most of aviation rules were "stolen" from nautical rules:

Red/green nav lights, right of way rules, the port of the word nautical to "aeronautical," etc.

 

I am not familiar with the exact requirements by law and I guess that you aren't forces to land but you but yourself out for liability. If you continue to fly and bad things happen you will be accused of extreme negligence and that kind of stuff. It is very stupid of a pilot to do so. If you land and it all goes fine then there is nothing to it, literally no downside. Safety is always number 1 priority.

According to the PIC thing it usually ends up with the PIC in charge taking the safer direction, For example: it says to continue to destination in the QRH and the pilot lands at a close airport. Now they have the rule to protect him in such case. Now the company can't sue him for burning fuel, endangering the company economy (if it is a small company), and so on.

 

As you wrote, PIC actions can be questioned by the agency, and they sure will. Every time you move a vehicle it is always important to remember, "Can my decisions be acceptable in court". If it said to land in the QRH and you continue it is going be difficult to get away with it. On the other hand if the company had changed the checklist to "continue to destination" the company would make them selves liable to be sued.

 

Anyway, you have to watch out because negligence is never acceptable! It is your job to keep safety the number 1 priority.

 

In the aviation world this isn't so famous because the crew usually dies in the crash as well. In the maritime world the captain often survives (since they actually know what is going on) and they practically always get blamed, just look at captain Schettino. Open some random investigation report and you will see that practically every time the pilot/captain is to blame, unless the company broke some law.

 

One thing to be added is that the PIC law is there to protect the pilot from company bosses as well. For example if the company boss is on the plane (the guy who literally owns the plane) he can not force the pilot to something. The same goes for ships. Even if a admiral is on a small patrol boat he can not force the captain to do something at all. The breakage if this law led that the President of Poland and a large part of the general stab died in Russia sine they forced the pilot to land in bad weather.

 

I hope this makes sense and that it helps some of you to make the best possible decision.

 

Regards,

 Manfred

[19AB67 16]

Thanx Manfred. 

What I don't get is that 'only' one important items seems to be affected by the loss of GEN BUS2. 

(Have to check the messages disconnecting GEN BUS1 or 3...) 

Why cannot other sources (on the MD11 automatically) take over here? 

The MD11 engineers usually componsate the loss of one source (power/bleed) or hyd/fuel pump by other redundant ones nicely, not here... 

[PHXMD-11 86]

 

The MD11 engineers usually componsate the loss of one source (power/bleed) or hyd/fuel pump by other redundant ones nicely, not here...

 

The MD-11 engineers are all retired, still at Boeing, or are somewhere else...

 

The electrical system is automatically controlled. I think the equipment on the second generator bus are transferred to either the thrid generator bus or the APU generator if available.

[19AB67 16]

The MD11 engineers usually componsate the loss of one source

 

... means of course the system they designed some decades ago... 

[PHXMD-11 86]

means of course the system they designed some decades ago...

 

I was just kidding. I know what you meant.

 

I checked and the AC tie bus will parallel the gen busses so if one fails, the other IDG (integrated driven generator) will assume the electrical load of the failed one.

[19AB67 16]

:rolleyes:

 

Remains the question why they did link the AUX pitot to one of the remaining the sources... 

 

:Thinking:

[sandpatch 9]

From what I can understand in the QRH it says: "Battery charger inoperative". If the battery dies then all the system navigation dies as well. A very dangerous situation. As I understand the error you have affects the entire bus system, that means that every component only has 1 or 0 connections to power it. It could be replaced from another generator but then fire might start (guessing here). As you can see in the QRH, if the generator has an error it just says to continue, but if the bus is dead you should land.

 

This is way outside of my area though, just guessing.

 

Regards,

 Manfred

[xxJohnxx 21]

Yeah I agree with Manfred here. A generator 2 failure is no problem as another will take over the generator 2 bus. However if the generator bus 2 failes (shortcut, whathever) it may not be a good idea to conect another generator bus to it.

As your generator bus 2 failed doesmean that you looose your battery charger. However that doesn't mean that it's starting to discharge. Neither a discharged battery means you loose any systems if the generators run.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

I am not familiar with the exact requirements by law and I guess that you aren't forces to land but you but yourself out for liability. If you continue to fly and bad things happen you will be accused of extreme negligence and that kind of stuff. It is very stupid of a pilot to do so. If you land and it all goes fine then there is nothing to it, literally no downside. Safety is always number 1 priority.

 

I'm going to disagree with you.  To your first point about not landing but opening yourself up to liability, that liability is implicit as soon as you take your seat on the flight deck.  While you're correct that your liability and potential to have to answer for your actions increases as a result of not landing, it doesn't mean that you suddenly have liability where you once did not.

 

To your next point about continuing the flight, you're assuming that something else is going to go wrong.  While that may be valid, if the correct action is to land the aircraft under the assumption that something else is going to go wrong, then why would we take off in the first place?  I'd also be very, very hesitant to claim what someone would be accused of, by the agency or a court.  What happens after you decide to continue to your destination, if not linked to the failure of the AUX PITOT HEAT, could very well be seen as not the fault of the crew.  I will, however, agree with your later point that blame is often placed on the pilot(s).  Not looking at the details to find cases similar to this one, however, it would not be a fair assumption to compare those to this case.

 

If you land early and all goes fine, there are most certainly a downsides:

-Your passengers just took a huge delay for something that, weighing the risks, could be negligible.  What if there's someone there who planned that flight to make a wedding, or jumped on the flight in a last minute decision to hopefully spend a few last hours with a dying relative?

-Your airline probably just got smacked with a host of fees and charges.  That's also not mentioning that the aircraft now likely has to be serviced wherever you landed it, which the airline will also have to pay for at whatever external rate exists where you landed.  Your actions also got the airline some negative reactions from the passengers.  If there's one thing you'll find out about passengers, it's that very few are very understanding when you mess up their day, particularly when it's maintenance-related.  While, sure, the airline has no retribution against you as the QRH said land at the nearest suitable airport, that negative publicity could affect you indirectly.

 

The comment on how it would be stupid is one that leans more towards a following of notional safety.  I understand everyone is entitled to an opinion, however.

According to the PIC thing it usually ends up with the PIC in charge taking the safer direction, For example: it says to continue to destination in the QRH and the pilot lands at a close airport. Now they have the rule to protect him in such case. Now the company can't sue him for burning fuel, endangering the company economy (if it is a small company), and so on.

 

You can make whatever inferences based on that rule that you wish, but the rule is rather cut and dry:

The PIC is the end authority to the operation of that aircraft.  You, alone, are the final decision maker.

As you wrote, PIC actions can be questioned by the agency, and they sure will. Every time you move a vehicle it is always important to remember, "Can my decisions be acceptable in court". If it said to land in the QRH and you continue it is going be difficult to get away with it. On the other hand if the company had changed the checklist to "continue to destination" the company would make them selves liable to be sued.

 

Again - you have to remember that it said land at the nearest suitable airport.  There's a difference.  Suitable is a subjective term, which you may offer up your own interpretations of why you continued to land at the nearest suitable airport, which happened to be your destination field.  Obviously, if you bypass a listed en route alternate, they may question that, but again, the likelihood that something catastrophic happening from your AUX PITOT HEAT being inop is rather slim.  As such, you're not likely to appear in court over your actions.

Anyway, you have to watch out because negligence is never acceptable! It is your job to keep safety the number 1 priority.

 

Everyone throws negligence around too much in today's day and age.  To me, it's just a sign of how we've litigated ourselves into oblivion, but that's not really within the scope of the discussion here.  The point that I need to make is that you keep bringing up that safety is the number one priority.  Sure it is, but there's a huge difference between notional safety and safety.  Beyond that, your opinion on what is safe may be different from mine (which it clearly is).  Notional safety is the assumption that something is more safe without actually getting into the details.  It's everywhere in the aviation world.  I used to work for a company that stressed lighted wands at all times for aircraft marshalling for reasons of safety.  That's notional safety.  The lighted version seems more safe to them in the day because it is also clearly safer at night.  In the day, though, it really makes no difference if I use wands or even my hands.  If you ever look under the wheels of a plane, you'll see similar.  Airline SOPs are often excessive with placing chocks on the wheels.  On a perfectly calm day, you really only need one set of chocks on one set of wheels.  I've seen both mains and the nose gear chocked on a 73' with light wind at best.  Again, the notion is "if one is safe, then three is much safer."  One is perfectly fine in 99% of the scenarios.  Notional safety: it's not that it's actually safer - it just feels safer.

 

Same goes for your AUX PITOT HEAT.  It's there as a redundant system.  The backup to my main system has failed.  My main system is still operational.  While my margin of safety has been decreased slightly, it does not mean that safety has been wholly, or even in a major part, compromised.

 

 

 

Pick many of the other failures and I'd agree with you.  The GEN BUS killing my AUX PITOT HEAT, however, doesn't compromise my safety enough to justify diverting.