SAA flight nearly went very bad!

[AfriqueDS]

I do not think that water in the fuel is the mistake of the pilot, but.......

......Since 2014, I did not fly SAA. Just do not trust the maintenance of planes and the training/ skill of the pilots.

Bostoe

The water in the fuel is not his fault but the decision to load passengers on a "ferry Flight" is his responsibility. He shoudl be fired and the people trying to cover up should be named and also fired.

The NEW SAA - the same as the OLD SAA!

[heyyahhey]

The water in the fuel is not his fault but the decision to load passengers on a "ferry Flight" is his responsibility. He shoudl be fired and the people trying to cover up should be named and also fired.

The NEW SAA - the same as the OLD SAA!

Actually - SAA should have their air operator license revoked - if in fact what is written in that article is correct. There is no way that captain would have made that decision alone.

[Morne - Skip]

Actually - SAA should have their air operator license revoked - if in fact what is written in that article is correct. There is no way that captain would have made that decision alone.

Actually the last signature on paper, before a plane's door is closed, is the captain's

[JBX]

The water in the fuel is not his fault but the decision to load passengers on a "ferry Flight" is his responsibility. He shoudl be fired and the people trying to cover up should be named and also fired.

The NEW SAA - the same as the OLD SAA!

Water in fuel is a danger for the plane, the people on it, with or without ferry pax as well as people on the ground if the plane comes done.
Their appears to be a sense of "tata ma chance" in SAA.

I stopped flying SAA in 2002 after an unpleasant interaction with a cabin attendant.

Will never fly them again. Simple, just shut the airline down.

[clivemd]

I recon this will be covered up and end up in file 13 and who ever is in the wrong will be promoted

[AfriqueDS]

Actually - SAA should have their air operator license revoked - if in fact what is written in that article is correct. There is no way that captain would have made that decision alone.

He might have been pressured into the decision but the ultimate responsibility for GO/NOGO decisions lie with the pilot in the cockpit.

[heyyahhey]

Actually the last signature on paper, before a plane's door is closed, is the captain's

Of course. But this was a major maintenance issue. Operations would have been involved, etc…. As I wrote - no way would that call have been made by that pilot alone. I grew up around aviation. It just does not work that way.

This involved a change in categorization of the flight to a non passenger flight - major changes. That’s not a simple decision like to fly with a “pilots discretion” system INOP.

If it was left to the captain - that reflects such a serious error in mgmt process, that their certificate should be pulled anyway.

[Pointer41]

Especially commercial aviation errs (normally) very far on the side of caution, as the consequences of a wrong decision is very serious indeed. SAA operates under what is known as large aircraft operations, Part 121 of the aviation law, but there are many other rules, best practises, etc that are applicable, as well as safety practises. Manufacturers practises and maintenance procedures are very exact and specific to ensure the aircraft operates safely, i.e you cannot just depart with defects, there are specific guidelines and rules, a bit complex for a quick comment, but fuel contamination is a major event even in small aircraft.

The fact that they had an engine rollback may indicate a shortfall there, as manufacturer's procedures will ensure safety margins should have been maintained. For me, that is a red flag. Second flag (and more serious) is that the aircraft was allowed to carry passengers until ensured without doubt that the snags are cleared. This decision is that of the operator (accepted by captain) and is indicative of the operator safety culture. Not knowing the decision process for most suitable weather, but following engine failure the aircraft should have landed at the nearest suitable airport. The nearest. I doubt Jhb was the nearest suitable, but I have no facts. For that matter, all preceding is speculation as well, but I refuse to fly SAA.

[HugoNotte]

We refuel in Accra twice a day. No issues so far.
When refueling, the person responsible for the fuelling would be shown a water check by the operator of the fuel bowser. Basically a fuel sample is sucked into a syringe through a cartridge, which would indicate the slightest amount of water in the jet fuel.
The water test is then documented on the fuel receipt. It's either done in the presence of an engineer or one of the flight crew members. In case of SAA I would think they have either their own maintenance staff in Accra or have contracted another airline's maintenance.

As a Captain, one hast to rely on the signatures of a lot of people. Once an aircraft is signed out by maintenance, it's good to go. I can just make sure that the required documents and signatures are there, I can't verify whether the work has been done properly and whether maintenance procedures have been followed according to the maintenance manual, which is not accessible to the flight crew anyway.
Obviously, if I find evidence that procedures have not been followed, I can refuse to accept the release of the aircraft.

[Pointer41]

Sure thing, as captain you can't be everywhere. I had an external fuel pump ruined in Central Africa (well, it's filter) pumping fuel to test, the aircraft tanks were not affected. In the case of SAA, Airbus procedures should have cleared the problem, caution should have been exercised in dispatch as well as en route. Contamination can happen, I frown a bit on subsequent actions. Either way, even if all actions are done perfectly, it is still classified a serious incident, and warrants inspection of safety procedures.

[Prof]

Rebuttal...from SAA CEO

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...d-with-racism/

[Jeepiscool]

I've also been told it's lies, by someone who should know

[HugoNotte]

Rebuttal...from SAA CEO

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...d-with-racism/

Maybe Mr Leitch should have researched the facts a little bit before writing the sensationalist article?

[clivemd]

So is this something that should of been taken seriously or are they blowing it out of proportion as don’t know the full story behind this

[blazerb2]

Rebuttal...from SAA CEO

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...d-with-racism/

Interestingly no comment on this rebuttal.

I fly SAA regularly into Africa and will continue to do so.
I also flew many other International airlines over many years and happenings abound for all of them.

[mikeml]

Rebuttal...from SAA CEO

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...d-with-racism/

Why bring race in when in defensive mode? They mentioned a pilot's name.

I've stayed clear of SAA for a while now, especially since supply tenders have to go through approved "suppliers/vendors", increasing costs and chances of substandard spares. There has also been an "technical experience drain" from the technical side, similar to that of Eskom.

[Pointer41]

So is this something that should of been taken seriously or are they blowing it out of proportion as don’t know the full story behind this

It remains a serious incident, (actually more than one) no matter the cause. Safety barriers should have prevented water in fuel to cause engine surges and roll-back, but did not.

Excerpt of the SAA CEO's statement: "This Airbus product is a safety-proof, highly computerised flying machine that flies on two Rolls-Royce engines. As it happened in this instance, the aircraft could warn the pilots that something was wrong with the quality of the jet fuel being used during the refuelling procedure. It shut the fuel tank nozzle automatically, and would not allow the pilots to fly until the water that was detected in the fuel tanks had been drained out. Water contamination of fuel in aircraft fuel tanks is not unusual and is routinely monitored through maintenance actions."

This shows a few aspects right there. Fuel contamination is actually rare. Minute amounts of water are always present, but systems, engines and filters are designed with that in mind and the amounts are minuscule. Specific procedures are followed to prevent contaminated (e.g. too much water in the fuel) being pumped into aircraft tanks for obvious reasons. It does not matter who the fuel supplier is, the safety responsibility remains with the operator. Contaminated fuel (first incident) actually being tanked into aircraft tanks is an extremely rare and another serious incident right there. Having the aircraft engines roll back in flight is another and most serious. It's like the holes of a Swiss cheese lining up. The CEO's statement should have been checked for technical correctness. No aircraft or machine is safety-proof, that is quite obvious as well.

[HannesS]

Rebuttal...from SAA CEO

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...d-with-racism/

In a decidedly anti-SAA tone that is laced with racist prejudice against a decorated black senior pilot, Captain Vusi Khumalo, he bandies a series of falsehoods about the incident on SAA’s Flight 9053 that flew out of Accra, Ghana on 15 April 2022 under the command of Captain Khumalo.

The moment he played the race card it means he's got nothing else to defend with.

[Prof]

This happened on my doorstep....

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...ion-authority/

So in my humble opinion do I have to believe what comes from SACAA?

The failure of SAA v1.0 which has morphed into SAA v2.0...shrouded in much secrecy...do I have to believe them?

Playing the race card....lost the plot there.

Then we have the 'vaccines' flight to Brussels.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...accine-flight/

https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/sou...ne-flight-caa/

https://www.da.org.za/2021/03/da-cal...ht-to-brussels

On the 'alpha floor event' SAA did not report within the prescribed timeframe of 24-72hrs.

Now on the newest 'event' we have two sides....

Flight was on 14/15 April
Report according to first article was picked up from Ghana authorities filing....SACAA filing seems to be 25 April

The rebuttal states it was reported on 17 April....

vis-a-vis the captain...

https://press-admin.voteda.org/wp-co.../05/image1.jpg

https://www.da.org.za/2022/05/alpha-...g-organisation

So much smoke & mirrors....

[HugoNotte]

It remains a serious incident, (actually more than one) no matter the cause. Safety barriers should have prevented water in fuel to cause engine surges and roll-back, but did not.

Excerpt of the SAA CEO's statement: "This Airbus product is a safety-proof, highly computerised flying machine that flies on two Rolls-Royce engines. As it happened in this instance, the aircraft could warn the pilots that something was wrong with the quality of the jet fuel being used during the refuelling procedure. It shut the fuel tank nozzle automatically, and would not allow the pilots to fly until the water that was detected in the fuel tanks had been drained out. Water contamination of fuel in aircraft fuel tanks is not unusual and is routinely monitored through maintenance actions."

This shows a few aspects right there. Fuel contamination is actually rare. Minute amounts of water are always present, but systems, engines and filters are designed with that in mind and the amounts are minuscule. Specific procedures are followed to prevent contaminated (e.g. too much water in the fuel) being pumped into aircraft tanks for obvious reasons. It does not matter who the fuel supplier is, the safety responsibility remains with the operator. Contaminated fuel (first incident) actually being tanked into aircraft tanks is an extremely rare and another serious incident right there. Having the aircraft engines roll back in flight is another and most serious. It's like the holes of a Swiss cheese lining up. The CEO's statement should have been checked for technical correctness. No aircraft or machine is safety-proof, that is quite obvious as well.

1) the Daily Maverick article should have been fact checked before it was published.
2) Accra to Johannesburg is a 6 hours flight. If the engine surge had to do with contaminated fuel, why did it happen 5 hours into the flight and not much earlier?
3) an engine stall is an aerodynamic phenomenon and even as a former jet engine mech, I can’t see a correlation between an engine stall and fuel contamination.

Criticising the crew for not diverting to Gaborone, into thunderstorms, which may very well cause wind shear on approach or landing, with the power of only one engine just shows lack of understanding of sound decision making. Proper wind shear, or a microburst are difficult to handle and push most aircraft to their performance limits on all engines running, but facing that on one engine might well proof fatal. Anyone who has done a single engine go around in the simulator would know how little performance margin there is.
After all Johannesburg was rather close and, considering the weather conditions, could have well been the nearest suitable airport in that situation.
Some might want to read up on the definition of “suitable airport”.