Blow out static port

I just recently saw an episode of "Air Emergency" that talked about an
Air Peru flight (I may have the details wrong). Basically a 757 take
off at night over the dark ocean and no static system. The pilots never
figured out the problem. They knew their instruments were wrong but
they assumed ATCs altitude readout was correct (which it wasn't the
transponder is also served by the static system). In short, the cause
was a $1/hr aircraft washer who put duct tape over the static ports
before washing the plane. Boeing ended up sending a lot of money to
family members. The interesting thing is that the 757 maint manual says
to only use special Boeing tape (bright orange) when coving up static
ports.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
I just recently saw an episode of "Air Emergency" that talked about an
Air Peru flight (I may have the details wrong). Basically a 757 take
off at night over the dark ocean and no static system. The pilots never
figured out the problem. They knew their instruments were wrong but
they assumed ATCs altitude readout was correct (which it wasn't the
transponder is also served by the static system). In short, the cause
was a $1/hr aircraft washer who put duct tape over the static ports
before washing the plane. Boeing ended up sending a lot of money to
family members. The interesting thing is that the 757 maint manual says
to only use special Boeing tape (bright orange) when coving up static
ports.

Yeah, I've seen that episode. It's always troubled me that the pilots never
figured out the static ports were blocked, and didn't know the transponder
altitude was based on the static pressure. I've wondered whether that part was
true, or whether the truth was altered for dramatic effect. It's just
inconceivable to me that they didn't know these things. 'course, I wasn't there.

Dave

On 5/4/2005 11:46, Dave Butler wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:
I just recently saw an episode of "Air Emergency" that talked about an
Air Peru flight (I may have the details wrong). Basically a 757 take
off at night over the dark ocean and no static system. The pilots never
figured out the problem. They knew their instruments were wrong but
they assumed ATCs altitude readout was correct (which it wasn't the
transponder is also served by the static system). In short, the cause
was a $1/hr aircraft washer who put duct tape over the static ports
before washing the plane. Boeing ended up sending a lot of money to
family members. The interesting thing is that the 757 maint manual says
to only use special Boeing tape (bright orange) when coving up static
ports.

Yeah, I've seen that episode. It's always troubled me that the pilots never
figured out the static ports were blocked, and didn't know the transponder
altitude was based on the static pressure. I've wondered whether that part was
true, or whether the truth was altered for dramatic effect. It's just
inconceivable to me that they didn't know these things. 'course, I wasn't there.

Dave

If this is the same episode I'm thinking of, the co-pilot did figure it
out, and told the pilot that the corrections were not going to work.
The Pilot basically told the co-pilot to keep his place.

If I remember correctly, this brought up new rules regarding the ability
of the co-pilot to take control from the pilot in such cases.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

Dave Butler wrote:

Yeah, I've seen that episode. It's always troubled me that the pilots
never
figured out the static ports were blocked, and didn't know the
transponder
altitude was based on the static pressure. I've wondered whether that
part was
true, or whether the truth was altered for dramatic effect. It's just

inconceivable to me that they didn't know these things. 'course, I
wasn't there.

As the victim of several instances of a blocked static system, I've
pretty much learned to recognize it right away. I wouldn't be quite
so quick to question the 757 crew's response, though. Their situation
was made quite a bit more complicated by the constant false (and
contradictory) warnings coming from the computers. Every time they
were getting close to getting a handle on the problem, some new
contradictory alarm would go off. Without any ground reference, and
knowing that their instruments were questionable (but not exactly which
ones, due to the number of alarms), it's not hard to imagine them going
into brain overload. Realistically, what are the chances of both
independent static systems failing simultaneously. In the end, they
ran out of time before they could come to the right conclusion.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

On 4 May 2005 09:03:12 -0700, Robert M. Gary wrote:

The interesting thing is that the 757 maint manual says
to only use special Boeing tape (bright orange) when coving up static
ports.

-Robert

Yes and nobody knows that McDonalds sells hot coffee and you shouldn't pour
it on your crotch.

With the ability of skumbag attourneys to convince a hand-picked dufus jury
that the evil big company needs to pay the dead and injured, no matter who
is wrong, things like that will continue and all us consumers and
stockholders pay. Besides, it's a bunch easier to file suit against a US
company than a foreign airline.

Case in point - In the firestone tire suit for over $1B, the parties to the
class got a coupon for $40 or so off their next set of tires. The lawyers
got the rest.

How many of you non-attourney smokers benefited from the tobacco suit? I
know one lawyer that purchased a $30M Gulfstream with his part of the
settlement. You think the companies paid for this? Nope - us consumers.
Even if you don't smoke your insurance bill went up and mutual fund went
down.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

I remember covering the McDonalds case in law class. Its a classic
example of what happens when you put a $10/hr McDonalds employee on the
stand without any pre-coaching (which is legal and standard). The woman
in question received serious burns on the genitalia and required
several surgeries to correct ( I think she was still left with lasting
pain and deformities) . McDonalds had a standard for its coffee
temperature but the store did not check it and ran the coffee hotter
than spec. She sent McDonalds several letters asking for some
assistance with medical payments. McDonalds sent her back rude and
terse responses (which were all admissible in court) They also stated
that they knew the coffee was too hot but had not done anything to
correct it. Her neighbor (or son-in-law or what ever) was an attorney
and simply offered to help draft letters. After McDonald's retarded
responses he knew a jury would be upset.
So, no problem, just put the manager on the stand, have him say, "We
are so sorry this happened to this poor woman. We thought we had
corrected the problem with the coffee temp but apparently not. However,
recently we've training all our employees on the correct usage of the
coffee maker". This would have easily made the jury happy (who had just
finished listening to gruesome accounts from medical experts on the
victims injuries). So the $10/hr McDonalds manager gets up on the stand
and says (paraphrased), "Its coffee, its hot, deal with it". I think
the jury found the award simply because they were so mad at McDonald's
attitude toward her. A little sympathy would have gone a long way.
-Robert

Hi group again,

I've found the solution for my static port problem.
A ground to size cotter pin with a streamer attached to it.

-Kees