 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Air carrier flight crew has slat extension problem, request emergency equipment stand by. Corrects problem, normal landing.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 201848 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199202 |
| Day | Sat |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : cmh |
| State Reference | OH |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 4000 msl bound upper : 5000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | IMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : cmh artcc : zse |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach descent other |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : flight engineer pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 10000 flight time type : 6000 |
| ASRS Report | 201848 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 3000 flight time type : 600 |
| ASRS Report | 201844 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : critical |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | flight crew : overcame equipment problem |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
While maneuvering for an ILS with flaps and slats extended we got a slat disagreement light. We followed company procedures and recycled the slats and light went out. After selecting 15 degree flaps the light came on again and wouldn't go out. The first officer visually inspected the slats and indicated that they were not both down the same amount. We again went to company procedures and they direct us to restore the slats to the position where they agree with the amount selected, which in this case was slats up, we asked to be pulled off the approach to prepare the aircraft and cabin for a no slat landing. I asked for the equipment to be standing by but confirmed we were not declaring an emergency. I told the controller we had a slat problem. I had the flight attendants prepare the cabin and briefed the passenger on the nature of our problem and to get familiar with their emergency exit location and operation should the need arise. I chose to do all of this because of our higher than normal landing speed (152 KTS). After starting our approach (still outside the LOM) the first officer noticed the hydraulic pumps were not in the hi position (necessary for normal slat operation). After selecting hi pump position the slats operated normally. I had approach secure the equipment prior to the beginning of the ILS and we landed normally with no further incident. The cause of the incident was we missed putting the pumps to the hi position during the approach check because of a distraction with ATC communications. It progressed to the point it did, because company procedures never mentioned the obvious in this abnormal, check the hydraulic pumps in hi position. Human factors include a xa:00 am get up this day, this was the 4TH ILS approach previous 8 to min for the day, all following a 12+ hour day previously with 4 of 5 legs to low IFR min approachs. I think a review of company procedure for this abnormal and a rewrite would prevent this from happening again.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ACR FLT CREW HAS SLAT EXTENSION PROBLEM, REQUEST EMER EQUIP STAND BY. CORRECTS PROBLEM, NORMAL LNDG.
Narrative: WHILE MANEUVERING FOR AN ILS WITH FLAPS AND SLATS EXTENDED WE GOT A SLAT DISAGREEMENT LIGHT. WE FOLLOWED COMPANY PROCS AND RECYCLED THE SLATS AND LIGHT WENT OUT. AFTER SELECTING 15 DEG FLAPS THE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN AND WOULDN'T GO OUT. THE FO VISUALLY INSPECTED THE SLATS AND INDICATED THAT THEY WERE NOT BOTH DOWN THE SAME AMOUNT. WE AGAIN WENT TO COMPANY PROCS AND THEY DIRECT US TO RESTORE THE SLATS TO THE POS WHERE THEY AGREE WITH THE AMOUNT SELECTED, WHICH IN THIS CASE WAS SLATS UP, WE ASKED TO BE PULLED OFF THE APCH TO PREPARE THE ACFT AND CABIN FOR A NO SLAT LNDG. I ASKED FOR THE EQUIP TO BE STANDING BY BUT CONFIRMED WE WERE NOT DECLARING AN EMER. I TOLD THE CTLR WE HAD A SLAT PROBLEM. I HAD THE FLT ATTENDANTS PREPARE THE CABIN AND BRIEFED THE PAX ON THE NATURE OF OUR PROBLEM AND TO GET FAMILIAR WITH THEIR EMER EXIT LOCATION AND OP SHOULD THE NEED ARISE. I CHOSE TO DO ALL OF THIS BECAUSE OF OUR HIGHER THAN NORMAL LNDG SPD (152 KTS). AFTER STARTING OUR APCH (STILL OUTSIDE THE LOM) THE FO NOTICED THE HYDRAULIC PUMPS WERE NOT IN THE HI POS (NECESSARY FOR NORMAL SLAT OP). AFTER SELECTING HI PUMP POS THE SLATS OPERATED NORMALLY. I HAD APCH SECURE THE EQUIP PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE ILS AND WE LANDED NORMALLY WITH NO FURTHER INCIDENT. THE CAUSE OF THE INCIDENT WAS WE MISSED PUTTING THE PUMPS TO THE HI POS DURING THE APCH CHK BECAUSE OF A DISTR WITH ATC COMS. IT PROGRESSED TO THE POINT IT DID, BECAUSE COMPANY PROCS NEVER MENTIONED THE OBVIOUS IN THIS ABNORMAL, CHK THE HYDRAULIC PUMPS IN HI POS. HUMAN FACTORS INCLUDE A XA:00 AM GET UP THIS DAY, THIS WAS THE 4TH ILS APCH PREVIOUS 8 TO MIN FOR THE DAY, ALL FOLLOWING A 12+ HR DAY PREVIOUSLY WITH 4 OF 5 LEGS TO LOW IFR MIN APCHS. I THINK A REVIEW OF COMPANY PROC FOR THIS ABNORMAL AND A REWRITE WOULD PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.