|
"I was aboard this aircraft. The take off was fast, rather quick and felt short. Then we pitched down and banked right (left wing up) and then left (right wing up) and the back felt to skid out sideways, I was in the window seat just behind the left wing. Then it felt like the pilot pulled the aircraft up manually. He continued to make very strong left and right banks while in the air before we circled back to JFK. |
Originally Posted by Smythe
(Post 10451556)
Sounds like a wake encounter.
|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10450993)
It will be interesting to see if the NTSB agrees with Avherald's (unattributed) report that "the ground tracks even suggest the aircraft came close to ground loop".
|
Originally Posted by booze
(Post 10451951)
Wake encounter in such crosswind?! Sounds like pisspoor piloting skills to me.
|
Originally Posted by thundersnow9
(Post 10452115)
SLF here. Just wondering if perhaps a wake from an aircraft departing 31R could have propagated downwind to 31L given the breeze. I've hit by more than a few wakes while sailing close to the runways in BOS, they do seem to sink fairly efficiently.
|
I hope AA isn't again training in aggressive use of rudder pedals in turbulence as before the AA 587 crash.
|
Wake encounter in such crosswind?! Sounds like pisspoor piloting skills to me. Would also have to see where at this airport the crosswinds are measured. |
The problem seems to be establishing just what the manufacturer stipulates, and how strictly that's interpreted as SOP.
A pal of mine had a friendly chat with a boss about holding the side-stick back slightly during the deceleration run. Such a small issue; a hangover from the old days. So what of crossing the controls on take off? If allowed at all, I'm sure it wouldn't be great handfuls of stick and rudder like the DC3 days. There was a discussion a year or so back about crossing up upon landing. I was pleasantly surprised at a few more experienced posters being very for this technique. This was after a near wing-tip scraping landing with a major thump when the starboard wheels came down. |
Wake encounters are pretty obvious and distinctive on a DFDR review.
Not suggesting it was (or wasn't) a wake encounter, but they should readily be able to tell fairly quickly. |
Handling skills are now tertiary to what managers are looking for in a newly-hired pilot. There is a presumption - by HR types - that pilots should first be customer service agents, then pilots. Flying can be trained after the fact. That’s their opinion. Anything goes to be the most PC company now. |
Originally Posted by Smythe
(Post 10452794)
Sorry, I dont see the crosswind details anywhere.
Would also have to see where at this airport the crosswinds are measured. KJFK 102351Z 33015KT 10SM FEW070 FEW250 11/M03 A2996 RMK AO2 PK WND 34026/2257 SLP145 T01111028 10161 20111 53034= TWR wind was 010/17 prior takeoff roll. Anemometers are placed along all RWYs, although I'm not sure about their spacing or number. |
Just Imagine
Just imagine the comments if this had happened to a 3rd world carrier..... Just Saying!
|
Originally Posted by Longtimer
(Post 10452884)
Just imagine the comments if this had happened to a 3rd world carrier..... Just Saying!
pg 47: Regional Accident Rate (2013-2017) Accidents per Million Sectors North America, north Asia, and EU around 1. Asia/pacific, Latin america, Middle east 2-3 Africa/Russia 4-6 Just Saying! |
33015KT
Wind direction 330 at 15 kts, peak 23, runway direction 313.9... crosswind? 5kts? |
Originally Posted by thundersnow9
(Post 10452115)
SLF here. Just wondering if perhaps a wake from an aircraft departing 31R could have propagated downwind to 31L given the breeze. I've hit by more than a few wakes while sailing close to the runways in BOS, they do seem to sink fairly efficiently.
JFK 03/759 JFK RWY 13L/31R CLSD 1904010300-1911162200 The aircraft taking off on 31L prior to American 300 was Envoy 4077, an EMB-135, about two minutes earlier. Just before AA300 started to roll (in more than one sense) Avianca 244 was landing on 4R and Delta 408 was taking off on 4L, both A330-200's: https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ebf1190d52.jpg |
Well, I dont think an ERJ caused a wake...nor a mild crosswind...
dragging a wing for a bit and taking out a sign....damn. !JFK 03/760 JFK RWY 13L/31R WIP CONST LGTD AND BARRICADED 1904010300-1911162200 CREATED: 29 Mar 2019 21:44:00 SOURCE: JFK !JFK 03/759 JFK RWY 13L/31R CLSD 1904010300-1911162200 CREATED: 29 Mar 2019 21:43:00 SOURCE: JFK Finished work early? NOTAMS for closure, not for open! So many crane obstruction NOTAMS hanging out there... https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotWeb/notamRetrievalByICAOAction.do?method=displayByICAOs&reportTy pe=RAW&formatType=ICAO&retrieveLocId=KJFK&actionType=notamRe trievalByICAOs |
|
Originally Posted by Smythe
(Post 10452892)
33015KT
Wind direction 330 at 15 kts, peak 23, runway direction 313.9... crosswind? 5kts? |
Originally Posted by booze
(Post 10453045)
Reported TWR wind was 010/17. Anyhow even 5 kts of crosswind is enough to highly reduce the effect of wake caused by the preceding aircraft, if any.
|
Originally Posted by 737 Driver
(Post 10453145)
Actually, a light crosswind can actually make it worse. Wingtip vortices move slowly outward away from the departure runway. A light crosswind can effectively hold the upwind vortex on the runway. Not saying that's the case here, but it's something to consider when judging your separation needs.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5e9cc66ea2.png |
Actually, a light crosswind can actually make it worse. Wingtip vortices move slowly outward away from the departure runway. A light crosswind can effectively hold the upwind vortex on the runway. Not saying that's the case here, but it's something to consider when judging your separation needs. the A321 had problems right at rotation. ground tracks reveal the aircraft was dragging its left wing tip for quite some distance on the ground, the ground tracks even suggest the aircraft came close to ground loop. |
Originally Posted by b1lanc
(Post 10446109)
Citing AVH,
"According to information The Aviation Herald received on Apr 12th 2019ground tracks reveal the aircraft was dragging its left wing tip for quite some distance on the ground, the ground tracks even suggest the aircraft came close to ground loop. |
True, but a pretty good sanding down of the wingtip...definite contact
|
Originally Posted by Sailvi767
(Post 10450345)
It appears it was in fact a aircraft malfunction. There might be legitimate reasons why you get a wing touching the surface, but thereafter you do never continue the flight. Period. This is what frightens me about this AA crew. Haven't they checked their wings after the rotation? Have they thought about keeping the slats out with structural damage?! |
Here are the edited ATC comms from VASAviation (looks like the wrong tail number in the video):
The AA300 crew seems to minimize the seriousness of the situation and says they don't need any assistance on the ground. They apparently didn't declare an emergency. |
Rumor has it they took off with full aileron trim. Stay tuned.
|
Originally Posted by aterpster
(Post 10454584)
Rumor has it they took off with full aileron trim. Stay tuned.
No out of range for takeoff trim warning on the Airbus? |
Love it !!!
|
Originally Posted by aterpster
(Post 10454584)
Rumor has it they took off with full aileron trim. Stay tuned.
|
Originally Posted by Dani
(Post 10454106)
Be it what it was... - I'm less concerned about the actual happening than by the handling therafter: Why on earth would you continue your flight to FL 200 and only then realize you have to return? Would they have continued to LAX if they wouldn't have a roll problem?
There might be legitimate reasons why you get a wing touching the surface, but thereafter you do never continue the flight. Period. This is what frightens me about this AA crew. Haven't they checked their wings after the rotation? Have they thought about keeping the slats out with structural damage?! FL200 is out of the immediate craziness of the terminal area, yet likely not all that far from the airport considering they had lots of gas, airport options, communications to complete and possibly reading to do depending on what if any messages were displayed. Very comfortable with this aspect of the crew's reaction. |
Originally Posted by West Coast
(Post 10454806)
FL200 is out of the immediate craziness of the terminal area, yet likely not all that far from the airport considering they had lots of gas, airport options, communications to complete and possibly reading to do depending on what if any messages were displayed. Very comfortable with this aspect of the crew's reaction.
|
Originally Posted by Dani
(Post 10454840)
I agree that FL200 is better than crawling along the surface like Ethiopian, but I would rather reduce speed and keep the flaps out. Imagine having a thing big as a house door in your slats and you try to retract them...
|
Originally Posted by Dani
(Post 10454106)
Be it what it was... - I'm less concerned about the actual happening than by the handling therafter: Why on earth would you continue your flight to FL 200 and only then realize you have to return? Would they have continued to LAX if they wouldn't have a roll problem?
There might be legitimate reasons why you get a wing touching the surface, but thereafter you do never continue the flight. Period. This is what frightens me about this AA crew. Haven't they checked their wings after the rotation? Have they thought about keeping the slats out with structural damage?! But after years of reading pprune I realize that most pilots are inferior to certain European ones. |
Originally Posted by West Coast
(Post 10454862)
If as you describe has occured, it would have been obvious visually or through airframe buffeting.
|
Originally Posted by b1lanc
(Post 10446109)
Citing AVH,
"According to information The Aviation Herald received on Apr 12th 2019 ground tracks reveal the aircraft was dragging its left wing tip for quite some distance on the ground, the ground tracks even suggest the aircraft came close to ground loop.:eek: The aircraft and left wing tip became airborne just ahead of the runway sign, the left wing tip impacted the sign, parts of which became embedded in the left wing tip. The wing also sustained according damage to its underside near the wingtip." “When we departed… strong roll to the left… as we climbed out,” the pilot told air traffic controllers shortly after takeoff, according to an audio recording from LiveATC.net. “We were banking… Uncontrolled bank 45° to the left.” “Turbulence from another aircraft?” the pilot adds. “I don’t think so. There’s a good crosswind, but we had an un-commanded roll to the left as we rotated.” The pilot also tells controllers that the aircraft was at that point “flying great”, and he requests clearance to return to JFK, where the A321 landed without incident at 21:09. “" I was aboard this aircraft. The take off was fast, rather quick and felt short. Then we pitched down and banked right (left wing up) and then left (right wing up) and the back felt to skid out sideways, I was in the window seat just behind the left wing. Then it felt like the pilot pulled the aircraft up manually. He continued to make very strong left and right banks while in the air before we circled back to JFK. He made an announcement that we had a major computer failure, but that he had control of the airplane and that we'll be making an emergency landing." Imagine the PF establishing a small into wind right wing down input when rotating to counter the expected effect of the right wing rising due to what he described as a "good crosswind". A reversed aileron input would exacerbate the crosswind's effect of raising the right wing with the PF responding by adding a further reversed right wing down input causing the right wing to rise further and the left to start dragging on the ground. Increased drag on the left side pulls the aircraft to the left eventually with the tip off the paved surface and contacting the DTG sign just as the aircraft gets airborne. Once in the air the reduction in drag on the left side after the impact with the sign induces an initial roll back to the right mentioned by the passenger followed by further roll oscillations to left and right that would be bound to occur if the ailerons were operating in reverse to the PF's stick inputs. As with D-AIPW a transfer of control to the other pilot or engagement of the A/P would have caused the reversed inputs to cease allowing the airplane to be controlled normally and leaving the appearance to the crew of having experienced an uncommanded roll to the left on take-off (which indeed it would be). There was also at least one instance of spoiler actuators being incorrectly locked out that led to a similar flight control response on rotation, but in that case the uncommanded roll effect persisted throughout the flight which does not accord with the pilot's statement that the aircraft was subsequently "flying great".. ELAC https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=147094 https://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publicatio...ublicationFile https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=147070 https://assets.publishing.service.go...12__G-KMAM.pdf |
Originally Posted by Squawk7777
(Post 10454898)
Or the opposite could have occurred. Imagine slat damage and suddenly pieces of it tear off. Well, that didn't happen. I could also "what if" a scenario from the actions you propose that ended up with the crew lawn darting. They did what they did based off training and the information available to them and landed safely. You can arm chair it and hypothesize any number of outcomes and work towards building a narrative. I'll point to the successful outcome |
Originally Posted by West Coast
(Post 10455130)
'Could have happened"
Well, that didn't happen. I could also "what if" a scenario from the actions you propose that ended up with the crew lawn darting. They did what they did based off training and the information available to them and landed safely. You can arm chair it and hypothesize any number of outcomes and work towards building a narrative. I'll point to the successful outcome |
Originally Posted by Jet Jockey A4
(Post 10454599)
No out of range for takeoff trim warning on the Airbus? |
Originally Posted by ELAC
(Post 10455124)
Given this description of the ground track, a prevailing crosswind from the right, the reported crew comments and the reported passenger observations this event could be the result of something similar to what occurred to the Lufthansa A320 D-AIPW in 2001. If a mis-wiring of the ELAC plug fitting is still possible (can't recall if Airbus modified this subsequently) then a reversal of the PF's aileron control could possibly account for what's been observed/reported.
. . . . |
Originally Posted by PJ2
(Post 10456007)
I have had plug reversals on a hydraulic pump, (A333, green/yellow, #2 engine) and I've also had the stick briefly to the stops in the flare when a crosswind picked up a wing, (A320), but a control reversal would be something we'd likely hear loud and clear about right away, wouldn't it? PJ...
Certainly the more time that passes without an AOT the more you tend to expect a more straightforward explanation than reversed wiring of the ELAC. Cheers! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:19. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.