曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
airspeed indications reappeared on all three
instruments. As a precaution, the PIC manually
switched the pitot tube heating on (PROBE/WINDOW
HEAT on the overhead panel from AUTO to ON).
At the moment of the incident, IMC with severe icing,
rain showers and turbulence were prevailing. For the
landing, the autopilot and autothrottle were available
again.
Investigation
The incident was reported to the BFU (Federal Bureau
of Aircraft Accidents Investigation) by the operator on
April 7th, 1998 by telefax. In the following, the Director of
the BFU charged a staff member with the investigation.
The investigation by the BFU was accomplished in
cooperation with the operator and the maintenance
organisation. During the investigation the BFU was in
contact with the aircraft manufacturer and the
manufacturer of the pitot tubes installed.
Since the aeroplane had already been returned to flight
service by the operator, first of all, the
documents/evidence concerning the complaints
entered in the flight log were inspected and the flight
data recorder was evaluated. The FDR had recorded
only the system 1 airspeed indication, and in the ECAM
system (MAINTENANCE POST FLIGHT REPORT =
MPFR) only the error messages of system 1 and the
standby systen had been stored. These recordings do
not directly confirm the reported course of the incident.
According to the FDR recordings, the function of the
autopilot had been interrupted for 59 seconds, whereas
the system 1 airspeed signal had been interrupted only
for 14 seconds.
On April 14th, 1998, the BFU made an enquiry of the
PIC at the operator’s. The pilot expressly affirmed that
the duration of the interruption of the airspeed
indications on both PFDs was quite exactly identical with
that of the interruption of the autopilot function.
Concerning the weather, he stated that only light to
medium icing and turbulence had been expected,
however, the icing turned out to be relatively severe.
Bundesstelle für
Flugunfalluntersuchung
Incident Investigation
Report
5X002-0/98
January 1999
5 X 002-0/98 Seite 2
Within a few seconds 2 - 3 cm of ice had accumulated
on the ice accretion meter. The official weather
expertise by the Deutsche Wetterdienst (German
Meteorological Service) proves that in showers and
thunderstorm cells at flight level FL 100 there were
conditions for severe turbulence and icing.
The operator had immediately arranged for a thorough
inspection of the aeroplane and the evaluation of the
FDR. This order was carried out by the contractual
maintenance organisation working for the operator in
accordance with the Service Information Letter 34-047
When carrying out the a.m. instruction, the maintenance
organisation found out that the systems concerned
functioned properly. Thus, the aeroplane was released
to flight service. The maintenance organisation
informed the operator, the aeroplane manufacturer, the
supervising authority and several internal departments
of this inspection result.
After the inspection of the aeroplane had been
concluded and on the basis of the evaluation of the
FDR/ECAM recordings, the investigation team
elaborated a joint catalogue of questions on April 21st,
1998 and transmitted it to the aeroplane manufacturer.
Furthermore all pitot tubes were removed and sent to
the component manufacturer for the purpose of
inspection. For the inspection of thep itot tubes, the
manufacturer requested in addition the associated
computers. Because of the relevance to the error
search on the aeroplane, on 27.4.1998 also the staff
members of the Trouble Shooting and Maintenance
departments who were involved in this matter were
heard by the Investigation Team.
Assessment
The non-appearance and/or differing storage of
warnings is to be explained by the conception on which
the ECAM system is based. The ADR ECAM warnings
are designed only for the technical availability of the
ADR computer system. The pitot tube as the input
sensor does not belong to the monitoring circuit of the
computer system. During the system comparisons by
the computer program, varying input conditions
(pressures) may result in differing messages from the
three independent ADR systems. These messages may
thus have been stored also under different menues
(POST FLIGHT REPORT, LAST LEG REPORT).
According to the information by the aeroplane
manufacturer the total air temperature recorded is
originating with system no. 2. From the assessment of
this recorded parameter it is obvious that the airspeed
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
航空资料39(15)
