PDA

View Full Version : Jetblue Airbus blows tires/ EVAC at Sacramento


armchairpilot94116
26th Aug 2010, 22:14
15 Hurt In Rough Landing At Sacto Airport - cbs5.com (http://cbs5.com/local/sacramento.flight.landing.2.1881381.html)

15 Hurt In Rough Landing At Sacto Airport
SACRAMENTO (CBS) ―
Click to enlarge
1 of 1
The flight sits on the Sacramento runway minutes after evacuation.
CBS
Fifteen people have been injured after a JetBlue Airbus made a hard landing and blew four tires before catching fire. The flight had to be evacuated at Sacramento International Airport Thursday afternoon.

The Airbus A320 touched down just before 1:00 p.m. A fire broke out and the crew deployed the emergency slides to evacuate the plane.

A passenger who was on the plane told CBS that he heard a bang and the plane stopped quickly after landing.

"We were then told to start evacuating very abruptly, you know 'Get out! Get out! Get out!," said the witness, identified only as Elvis. "(After I was off) I looked back under the plane and it was on fire and all four tires were out."

The fire was quickly extinguished. Emergency crews set-up a triage area to treat injured passengers. Fifteen people were reported injured.

The flight, which came in from Long Beach, had 86 passengers and 5 crew members on board.
( MMX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

vapilot2004
26th Aug 2010, 22:30
Probably another BSCU problem.

Mark in CA
26th Aug 2010, 22:31
Video here: 15 hurt after hard landing of JetBlue flight from Long Beach | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times (http://goo.gl/LVWx)

Wall St. Journal reporting injuries as "minor."

protectthehornet
26th Aug 2010, 22:58
I thought the airbus was so smart it wouldn't let the pilots do anything wrong wrong wrong. (sarcastic)

Vulcancruiser
27th Aug 2010, 01:01
There is a wildly improbable scenario where the brake sensor wires could have been reversed.......strictly a guess.....

protectthehornet
27th Aug 2010, 01:15
there was a series of problems on the DC10 in the middle 70's in which the anti skid lines were reversed.

---

also:

I've said this before on PPRune, but blindly evacuating is dangerous. I would not have evacuated for a brake fire/tire fire...should have stayed on, fought the fire from the fine fire department at Sacramento airport and waited for some portable stairs or other , safer off loading device..

Jasavir
27th Aug 2010, 02:12
And if they had stayed on and there was a catastrophic fire resulting from leaking fuel or hydraulics (onto the burning brakes) as a result of the heavy landing and a few passengers perished, the crew would be criticised for not evacuating the passengers.........right?

It's a given that one or two passengers may be injured going down a slide while evacuating but coming from the view that even small fires can become catastrophic in a very short time, I see nothing wrong with erring on the cautious side. We were not there and we are not yet privy to the communication exchange between ATC, the crew and the First responders that led to their decision........

Good call to evacuate.

The crew now has all the time in the world to debate over whether or not they should or shouldn't have evacuated and cost the company $ (insert your dollar amount here) per blown slide. I am sure that is way better that living with the idea that you were responsible for the deaths of passengers.

protectthehornet
27th Aug 2010, 02:18
jasavir

but it wasn't one or two injured...it was 15, with five to the hospital.

it wasn't a good call to evacuate...and there wasn't any leaking fuel or hydraulic fluid.


now, there have been times where an evacuation wasn't done and people died (airtours/british)...but that was after a catostrophic uncontained engine failure and a rejected takeoff.

I stand by what I said: blindly evacuating can be very dangerous.

Huck
27th Aug 2010, 02:25
If there's smoke coming out of the gear up to where the pax can see it, you ain't going to be able to stop them from evacuating anyway.

I remember when Valujet blew an engine on takeoff and had a fire come into the aft fuselage on a DC-9 in KATL. They aborted and evacuated. They found all the overwing exit doors about a hundred yards behind the aircraft - pax just opened them up on their own....

EW73
27th Aug 2010, 02:33
Nope....

I disagree...

Small fire, from advise from tower, (the only way he could have known there was any fire at all),

You know the trucks are on their way....

Keep them on board, away from injury from the fast approaching trucks and subsequent flying foam etc, not to mention the 'certainty' of a small (not so small in this case!), percentage of the pax getting injured in the evac.

In the unlikely case that the progress of dealing with the fire does not go as expected, again as advised by the tower, then you can evac from the doors least effected from the fire or ground activities.

Portable stairs are much less liable to cause injury!

Jasavir
27th Aug 2010, 02:39
protectthehornet,

I agree with you that blindly evacuating is never a good idea.

The point I'm trying to make is that since we were not there and and we weren't privy to the communication exchange between ATC, the crew and the First responders that led to their decision, it is unfair to say that they "blindly evacuated the aircraft".

In addition, I am saying that if you are in doubt about a situation and the possible consequencies of one response versus the other is far more grave, then it is better to err on the cautious side.

The report does not state the reason for the injuries but it did state that passengers said it was a hard landing so we can't attribute the injuries (or at least all of them) to the evacuation process alone.

The 10 minor injuries could be simple scratches, scrapes and bruises. The 5 serious ones could be attributed to the hard landing, the evacuation itself, or to someone looking to make a quick buck....All you have to do is hold your neck, grimace in pain and you are off to the hospital with an injury lawyer in tow...... :ok:

BTW, I have learnt a long time ago that what we read in the press and the facts as they actually occurred are quite often not the same.

armchairpilot94116
27th Aug 2010, 04:34
Remember this one? Firemen were not super fast to arrive.

YouTube - INCENDIO FIRE BOEING 737 CHINA AIRLINES NAHA OKINAWA JAPAN 2/2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g3j2CQXMT0&feature=related)

RatherBeFlying
27th Aug 2010, 05:07
It's much easier to be deliberative about deciding to evacuate when you have two cockpit exits and the front exit doors directly behind you.

In the back with your wife and kids ten rows away from the nearest exit with sixty odd panicked sheep focussed on retrieving their considerable cabin baggage blocking the way, the atmosphere is heavily biased against calm deliberation.

There was a 737 that blew an engine and aborted takeoff in CYYC many years ago. The pax popped the slides while the crew were discussing with the tower -- and got out in the nick of time.

protectthehornet
27th Aug 2010, 06:05
first off, my friend, an airbus guy, says that maybe the crew was fooling around with the parking brake switch in flight.

many of you are quoting incidents with engine failures etc...

this was a brake fire after a hard landing. it isn't a chinese fire drill. sacramento, the state capitol of the largest of the US states *population, and is a capable modern airport.

and the article I read says that the injuries all came from using the slide.

wait for the stairs, unless the danger is of a much higher magnitude.

And back in the old days, we carried our stairs with us on the B737, B727, and the DC9...heck the DC9 had two stairways, forwar4d and ventral...maybe the 727 too.

exeng
27th Aug 2010, 06:44
You state: now, there have been times where an evacuation wasn't done and people died (airtours/british)...but that was after a catostrophic uncontained engine failure and a rejected takeoff.


An evacuation was carried out as promptly as possible. See this report here:
ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 737-236 G-BGJL Manchester International Airport (MAN) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19850822-0)

I quote from that text: At 25 seconds past the 'thud' (and 20 seconds before the aircraft stopped) the crew decided to evacuate via the starboard side. The 737 was decelerating through 36 knots then and the captain warned the cabin crew about the evacuation six seconds later.


Regards
Exeng

ironbutt57
27th Aug 2010, 06:45
Since you weren't there "hornet", your speculation, and "what I would have done" comments are a bit silly don't you think?? :=

NigelOnDraft
27th Aug 2010, 07:23
Very unfair to comment on whether the right or wrong decision to evacuate. For a start there is usually no right or wrong, it was just a valid decision, on information available to whoever ordered the evac (if anyone).

Injuries: I would expect 1 or 2 serious injuries from an Evac - that is my "expectation", and by serious, I am probably tending towards broken limbs etc. We'll see later (after the pPrune instant enquiry dies down) how many of the 15 only have a small sprain / abrasion / just enough for a lawyer :=

So really just echoing Jasavir :ok:

NMoD

Touch'n'oops
27th Aug 2010, 11:31
Maybe the two in the pointy end gave MAX Autobrake ago!!!??? :E:E:E

protectthehornet
27th Aug 2010, 14:02
ironbutt57. my comment isn't silly at all. it is a warning to fellow pilots to be careful ordering an evacuation. For over a dozen years my airline has been teaching us to be careful about such things and also to avoid uncommanded evacuations initiated by passengers.

the facts as reported in published reports are:

the passengers DIDN'T know there was an emergency/fire until told by the crew.
15 people were injured, 5 seriously enough to be taken to the hospital.

And while you might be ready at a moment's notice to jump down a slide, there are elderly people out there who might break a hip doing so and have their lives harmed in the long term.

(exeng...sorry for my mistake. one article I read on the subject indicated that the crew told the passengers to remain seated...and that they did so. the air tours accident also taught us all how important it is to consider the wind in such situations.)


isn't it a bit odd, most every airline I've heard of shows a nice little film about brake fires/tire fires etc. Done perhaps by boeing during testing. No one ever panicked and hit the slides.

No Ironbutt...not for one moment is the: I wasn't there factor playing into my posts.

Are you a pilot? An airline pilot? haven't you been briefed/taught about such things?

just under 20 percent of the people on board were injured. the plane is still intact. using my judgement would have had NO ONE injured and the plane intact.

Uncle_Jay
27th Aug 2010, 17:46
when a bunch of airline pilots cant agree on something as simple as when to evacuate.

Fire = evacuate
Flashover takes about 90 seconds and everyone is dead with their hands in the overhead lockers trying to retrieve their 'gold fish'.

bearfoil
27th Aug 2010, 17:49
UncleJay

I'd fly with you anytime.

bear, hates fire, has a call in to an eyewitness, a professional.

aguadalte
27th Aug 2010, 17:54
protectthehornet,
Most of the times I tend to agree with your comments but I cannot believe you actually believe on this one:first off, my friend, an airbus guy, says that maybe the crew was fooling around with the parking brake switch in flight. which I find quite incredible. First of all, because if one "plays" with the parking brake switch in the air, it will activate the Master Caution and the ECAM will display "Parking Brake On" (if memory serves me well). There is no chance to unintentionally leave the Parking Brake switched On, except if one intentionally pushes the ECAM "Emergency Clear" push-button to make it disappear from the WD/SD and latter on forgets to "Recall" it or switch the Parking Brake to Off...
If this was the case, those pilots could be facing serious consequences... and without a prelim report, I really prefer to believe that something else must have happened before launching some sort of anathema against our colleagues of profession.

bearfoil
27th Aug 2010, 18:26
Through the eyes of a veteran of 38 years (NOT Jetblue).

Traffic was two Brasilias, an RJ and a 757. 16R was closed and may still be.

If PTH wanted to wait for airstairs, he'd still be waiting. I won't be specific out of respect for the crew, but there was substantial damage to the a/c. BTW, had PTH been there to greet the Captain, as he exited and questioned the propriety of his command he would have risked a PITN. When I started my conversation with said airline professional (as yet not permitted to get too specific), I explained PTH's POV.

"Excuse Me? You're joking?"

sorry Hornet, reconsider.

Ocampo
27th Aug 2010, 18:32
isn't it a bit odd, most every airline I've heard of shows a nice little film about brake fires/tire fires etc. Done perhaps by boeing during testing. No one ever panicked and hit the slides

Well maybe these guys didn't panicked completely, but they sure were uneasy and begging for les escaliers from 6:20 onwards :rolleyes:

YouTube - Airbus A340-600 Rejected Take-Off test (subtitles) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRzWp67PIMw)

Fire = evacuate

I feel ya :ok:

protectthehornet
27th Aug 2010, 19:19
Bearfoil...if you truly have spoken with the captain of the plane in question, I hope you asked HIM if HE ordered the evacuation, or if it just started in the back.

PITN I take is punch in the nose. Well, from what I have seen the plane is intact, the tires are flat. the plane looks fine with no other fire damage.

I stand by what I said before. Now, if he had special information, not available to us who just watch tv or read the papers, fine.

AS to aquadalte's comment. I was just offering what my airbus pilot friend said...I don't claim to know the 'bus. I took a substantial pay cut to avoid flying the bus and I'm still glad I did.

One has to wonder about the whole evacuation...if it started with the captain, that's one thing...but if it started in back...you gotta wonder if the engines had been shut down by the time the first pax were tumbling down the slide.

bearfoil, if you would like to PM me with more info that you can't tell us here, fine. If not, I see a plane that is upright, not consumed by fire, fully intact except for flat tires ( plural).

I'd like to think SMF has portable emergency stairs...but if they don't, let us know. Later a baggage loader was placed to access the plane.

jet blue, is famous for not having portable stairs anywhere...remember the valantine's day debacle of a few years ago?

exeng
27th Aug 2010, 21:03
I'm awaiting your response regarding the Airtours accident in Manchester.

In my view you have posted comments that are untrue - no problem to me personally but other readers may believe them to be true which in my opinion is unacceptable.


Regards
Exeng

protectthehornet
27th Aug 2010, 22:14
EXENG

please see my post (number 19) in this thread. I apologized there...perhaps you missed it....read carefully.

protectthehornet
27th Aug 2010, 22:17
Could the runway itself have had a catastrophic pavement failure, not as a result of this incident, but as a cause?

bearfoil
27th Aug 2010, 22:23
Whether germane here or not, I do see a rationale in PTH's stubbornness. It may not be modern, but once upon a time, The Captain ruled the roost. His was the call, he ate crow or drank freebies depending on his judgment, no music while he thinks, no "call a friend", or "ask the audience".

Because it may be perceived safest, maybe current command rests a little too heavily on "the odds". I heard Hank say once, "Safety? Shmafety, I don't think about safety. Frankly I don't need to think, All I need to do is the right thing, every time, immediately."

Of course it's an exaggeration, modern reality wants the "Nuance" right?

bear

DownIn3Green
27th Aug 2010, 22:26
:ugh::ugh::ugh:PTH...IMHO you know not of what you speak...You quote references and sources, yet you give no links or references at all...

If your mind-set for this thread is your attitude and belief, please let me know which Airline you work for (if any) so I can avoid flying on them...

You sound like one of those "After 100 knots we will take it in the air and treat it like an IFE"..."Captains"...ie...a loser...ever heard of "V-1"?...On real Jets it's a lots more than 100 kts...

And when did California become the "largest" state in the USA???

Manchester was in the 70's, and WE all learned from that..Don't delay...evacuate...

BTW...less than 2 yrs on the Prune and you have almost 900 posts???

Oh-I forgot...you know it all and you're trying to "educate" your fellow pilots...(your words, not mine)...

protectthehornet
27th Aug 2010, 22:31
you claim I don't know of what I speak.

California is the largest state in the USA in terms of population. Anyone disagree there??????

alaska of course in size, texas in ego (number two in size).

100 knots is a very critical time in the takeoff, though V1 is usually higher.

I am pretty sure you aren't a pilot though. I might be wrong there, but why else would you ask what airline I work for...you would only fly on YOUR airline if you were a pilot...its free remember?

p51guy
27th Aug 2010, 23:03
When I was a brand new captain on a 737 I believed unless it was the last resort I wouldn't evacuate because of the high chance of injuries. I got a positive bomb threat going to LAX one day with a brand new FO. The caller of the threat said it was set for 2500 ft on the descent. I called dispatch to see if Palmdale was above 2500 ft and while they were looking it up saw my cabin was at 100 ft so said I was going to continue into LAX since I was downwind already and had insufficient fuel for Reno. I said make sure the pushup stairs are available because the fwd airstairs are deferred as inop. They said ok. I landed and approaching the area to disembark passengers saw no pushup stairs so called ops and said where are they? They said we are working on it. I advised the FA's we were going to use all the slides with a full load of passengers. The chief asked why did you use the slides if nothing happened at 2500 ft? I said because bombs have non FAA approved altimeters and sometimes don't work unless you are patient and wait. Never heard any more but I felt sick knowing all those people were going down the slides for another false bomb threat.

Evacuating is a tough call sometimes. It is probably used more than necessary but I thought in my case if I had waited 20 minutes after parking for the stairs and it went off the FAA would fry me and I would be responsible for lost lives and injuries. It is a judgement call by the captain and I wouldn't second guess him if he went for getting the people out. Sim training usually has you call the tower and check for visual signs of fire before evacuating. Jet Blue probably did the same thing they did to pass their sim check.

protectthehornet
27th Aug 2010, 23:27
perhaps we can suggest that all airport fire rescue teams have a useable portable set of stairs in line after the fire engines approach a stricken plane.

P51 guy...that story sounds like a movie I saw...but they made denver.

p51guy
28th Aug 2010, 00:31
Guess what, the first thing I thought of was the movie when I was informed of the 2500 ft detonator. I knew our 737 couldn't go to Denver so since Reno would land us with zero fuel I chose Palmdale over the hill. At SJC I was walking around the airplane and saw nothing out of the ordinary so didn't think it would be in the wheel well. Knowing the cabin altitude was down the safest thing was to land at LAX. My brand new FO was flying so said be totally configured by 3,000 ft and land very gently. On the van ride back to SNA the driver had the radio on talking about our landing with the bomb threat. I told the FO you know you have had a rough day when the news is talking about your landing. I love that movie.

protectthehornet
28th Aug 2010, 01:08
I wish I could remember the name of that movie...I think van johnson was in it and it isn't shown very often.

bishop, california might have worked...if reno was zero fuel, its 200 miles closer...pretty high up too.

but you did the right thing...I guess the guy who called in the bomb threat lived in palmdale and knew the elevation (2543) and had seen the movie...maybe made a bet with a girl that he could make an air cal 737 land at palmdale.

all the best

SeniorDispatcher
28th Aug 2010, 01:31
This was the movie in question... The Doomsday Flight (1966).

The Doomsday Flight (1966) (TV) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060333/)

At the start of my career in the 1970s, I was told (FWIW) by an old-timer was the reason it's almost never shown is that every time it was, there was a spike a telephoned threats. That was based on the looney-to-normal person ratio back then, and I can't argue with the logic, given the larger number of loonies out there today... :(

protectthehornet
28th Aug 2010, 01:50
thanks senior dispatcher for the movie info and the reason it isn't on tv more often.

barometric or altimetric bombs are nothing new of course. the A bomb over hiroshima was an ''airburst" triggered to explode in the sky and not on contact with the ground

and in the film , "failsafe" made before, "the doomsday flight", the H bombs were to be triggered at 8000'...the vindicators had gone below that before arming and would climb over their target and never release, killing themselves and destroying the target.

Teddy Robinson
28th Aug 2010, 05:26
Somebody mentioned Autobrake; selecting the takeoff setting (3 as I recall) deliberately or otherwise would have given everyone a surprise :E
We were warned that we should never select it for landing, it's function being to bring the aircraft to a halt in the shortest possible distance in the event of an RTO.

Andy98
28th Aug 2010, 05:41
I'm just going to go back to the posts on page one about how they shouldn't have evacuated and waited for a safer way to get off like air stairs. He referred to British air tours. The people who died in the British air tour disaster died because they didn't get off fast enough. The smoke from the burning plastics was toxic. They made a good choice in evacuating.

exeng
28th Aug 2010, 06:38
My apologies to you - I had missed your statement in the previous post.

Regards
Exeng

protectthehornet
28th Aug 2010, 12:11
exeng...I like your motto...mistrust in management!

and others, I've just read that JETBLUE itself will take the lead in the investigation. this is disturbing to me, an independent body should do this sort of thing and report to all of us.

andy98...I truly think the air tours tragedy and the jetblue situation are very different.

aguadalte
28th Aug 2010, 14:24
AS to aquadalte's comment. I was just offering what my airbus pilot friend said...I don't claim to know the 'bus. I took a substantial pay cut to avoid flying the bus and I'm still glad I did.

One doesn't need to know the Bus, to exercise caution on one's declarations that may rise suspicions on other fellow pilots behaviors...the fact that this is a rumor's network doesn't excuse us for a less than urban approach to this, or any other accident. Fairness should be the motto.

bearfoil
28th Aug 2010, 15:39
aquadalte

I was about to pitch in a rather well circulated theory re: hard landings, but you have activated a more important pose, and thank you. At some point, as Burkill and Sully both found out, with different outcomes, at some point the a/c gets an avalanche of focus, then...... well, it always ends up in the pilot's lap anyway. I still think the slides were overwhelmingly indicated given the evidence that has unfolded. You should see the pool of molten magnesium. (not melted by now, of course.)

bear

aguadalte
28th Aug 2010, 15:55
Bear,
You're absolutely right. It is extraordinary how a pilot can drop from "hero to zero" in no time. I think that we, as professionals, should preserve our fellow mates from public and uninformed trials, thence preserving also the dignity of our profession.

protectthehornet
28th Aug 2010, 16:58
fairness aquad?

fine:

is it fair to say that it took way too long to clear the runway.

that other airlines offered to help, but because of jetblue's way of doing business they didn't have the needed items to expedite the process.

is it fair to say, that IF the pilots made a mistake, deliberate or otherwise, that their judgement on all aspects of the flight comes into question...including the evacuation?

fairness indeed. and my airbus pal indicated to me that doing anything ''not in the manual'' is just asking for trouble.

we shall see.

wonder if these two guys will have their contract renewed? jet blue has different sort of contract system...nothing like a regular union carrier.

protectthehornet
28th Aug 2010, 19:28
bearfoil...couldn't the molten metal you mentioned really be the thermal fusible plugs in the wheels?

bearfoil
28th Aug 2010, 19:43
PTH

Well, I'd have to actually see the extent of it. As is usual, I'm getting gaff from Mechanics about the Pilots, and guff from the pilots about the mechanics. My eyewitness is not exactly a Metallurgist, and neither am I.

oh well

protectthehornet
28th Aug 2010, 20:23
I just think that it is more likely to find molten plugs rather than magnesium, but as you say, most info is second hand and inexact.

I just read about a 747 that aborted and blew 10 tires...and they didn't use the slides.

but ...oh well like you say

clark y
28th Aug 2010, 22:02
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.



Clark y.

bearfoil
28th Aug 2010, 22:21
I know what let's do, let's ask the Passengers. Anybody want to bet against me that not one of those people is not grateful for the slide ride? Thought not. I have smelled tires burning, seen flames and smoke that looks like it came out of Hell, (In drills). Watch the 340 RTO Test flight and listen carefully to the Training Captain

"Merde" means "Shit" in French. And Although they were almost screaming like babies, I heard "L'Escaliers! L'Escaliers". (Stairs). Oh and those firefighters looked like screaming mimis when the Michelins exploded too. It isn't because they were fearful for no reason. They had the look of people who didn't care to die to save AB's tire budget. Seasoned pros, every man Jack of them. The ninnies I don't get are the ones who haven't caught on, and rummage around the overhead to retrieve bath soap or some crap. Well, not the French......

bear, hates fire

PTH What means "Clear the runway"? Do you mean taxi off the active? I've explained the parts list it took just to get the a/c mobile, with some major help from UAL. You can't mean Taxi off the RW. If you do, I'll post the list here. Also, if a blunder put them in the weeds, OK, but that doesn't mean they can't recover and save the humans. This is getting old.

protectthehornet
28th Aug 2010, 22:40
bearfoil

clear the runway, in this situation meant to remove the stricken aircraft safely from the runway allowing it to be repaired (the runway) to restore the airport to full operation.

as for asking the passengers, why not ask them if they would prefer cheaper fairs, better looking FA's , and NOT BEING INVOLVED IN THIS INCIDENT AT ALL.

aguadalte
28th Aug 2010, 22:58
Still don't get it, do you pth?
I'm not speaking of clearing the runway, or about Blue procedures..
I'm speaking about the consideration any pilot deserves from his fellow mates, and the right to be treated fairly (at least before) the investigation comes to a conclusion.
and my airbus pal indicated to me that doing anything ''not in the manual'' is just asking for trouble.Shouldn't that apply to ALL aircraft types?:ugh:You should know that.

bearfoil
28th Aug 2010, 23:04
Everything was gone up to and including the axles. UAL had to ferry air bags up from God knows where, They worked under lights all night, not wanting to damage the Bird any further, and no one could find a second axle.
SMF can do pretty ok with one Runway, and they did. After everybody's ok and Blood Pressure goes down, the Bitching is over, people get along and show the professionalism our Industry is known for when things go pear. It is what it is, and I think everyone knows it except you. I acknowledged what I thought was your rationale, and stood with you, and would again. But I am done here

bear

Graybeard
29th Aug 2010, 05:54
Wasn't JB one of few airlines that objected to 1500 hrs min. for pilots? How do their pilot experience levels compare to their competitors?

SeniorDispatcher
29th Aug 2010, 07:02
>>>UAL had to ferry air bags up from God knows where

Probably from their SFO MX base...

It's fortunate that JBU had this happen in Cali-4-nyah, as with most anywhere elese, the local Joe Patroni wouold have plowed it off the runway by now... ;)

misd-agin
29th Aug 2010, 16:25
How much smoke do 4/8(?) tires that are on fire put out? I've seen rubber burn, it can be very impressive.

Is that smoke entering the packs?

With no actual knowledge of what the crew information had at the time of the event how can you say "don't evacuate" from a safe distance?

California is the second largest state by population(?). Nice deflection. :=

bearfoil
29th Aug 2010, 19:39
misdagin

California does have the most people, it is #1 in population. Not likely to lose the honor, any time soon. Entry level survival, including Healthcare, cash, shelter and Mexican Food is absolutely free. Hell, If I did not already live here, and I was down on my luck, I would move here asap.

Yesterday, a friend called me and said he found a four hundred dollar surfboard on the Beach. It was old, and the leash was missing, but it was a keeper, so I guess now even The most popular sport comes freebie. Sheesh.(it was a Thruster)

Bear

bearfoil
29th Aug 2010, 20:42
I vote close the thread after deleting my last post, your discretion.

protectthehornet
29th Aug 2010, 20:54
misd again

california has been the largest state (population) for many , many years. it has the most congressmen, and the largest economy.

many,many years ago that honor might have gone to the great state of New York.

----

and now, a message from our sponsor:

So, there you are, pushing back, starting engines and the mechanic/ground guy, whatever your airline calls it, says on the interphone: YOU'VE GOT A FIRE IN THE TAILPIPE OF NUMBER TWO.

your reaction:

1. Shut down number two, cutoff fuel and pull fire handle...and then shoot the fire extinguisher to number two!

2. or do something else.


I'd like to know.

and the reason is part of the evacuation equation.

BOAC
29th Aug 2010, 21:29
and the reason is part of the evacuation equation. - I don't follow, and I enjoy cryptic clues. Are you referring to keeping the cabin informed?

bearfoil
29th Aug 2010, 21:43
The doomed aircraft hit and skidded down the Runway with passengers screaming and secretly thinking "Will I be allowed to get my carryon out of the OH?". The pilots, wrestling and sweating with the little swizzle stick at their sides, were pale white, secretly thinking "WTF, will Patty go out with me tonight?" Blowing sparks, thick black smoke and white flames everywhere, the a/c shuddered as it slowed, barely missing the orphanage that was built in the overrun.

60 miles away, Joe Patroni was munching on his unlit signature White Owl, when the meter lit up. Secretly thinking, "I should have taken retirement at eighty five, who can live on 10 dollars an hour?", He heard the cry for AIR BAGS!, SMF needs AIR BAGS!! Firing up the newest twenty year old Forklift, he careered madly down the Air Bag aisle, past the 537 JT-8's stacked like cordwood next to the crew rest bamboo bar. Then he thinks, "Christ, I'll need the X to Ferry me up to SMF, I'm the only one who knows how to start the Old D-10H they use to scrape dead 320's into the weeds to make way for the next Cessna wanting to park at GA...........
"Long landing approved, Hold Priest until Patroni gets here".

PTH?

Wouldn't you just stop pouring fuel into the nozzles and wait a bit? Or do you want Patroni to fire up the Caterpillar so he can push your useless bird into the weeds? After all, that landing RJ wants your Gate.

bear

poina
29th Aug 2010, 23:48
PTH

You need to go back to recurrent training if you're advocating discharging the fire bottle for a TAILPIPE fire.

bearfoil
29th Aug 2010, 23:51
Absolutely. George Foreman has worse fires than that in his backyard. And he does not own fire bottles, makes the chicken chewy.

sorry, trying to make a point.

Diesel8
30th Aug 2010, 00:31
I don't think the bus allows you to select max braking in the air any longer, just read the manual to refresh my memory and it says no. In the past I remember it being possible, but with the statement from AB "not recommended for landing!"

I too have heard it rumored that the parking brake was selected on, I hope it wasn't the case and that it was indeed a BSCU fault.

protectthehornet
30th Aug 2010, 00:35
poina

lets get a few more answers before I make my point.

pm me for my real answer if you like

poina
30th Aug 2010, 00:40
Thanks, I'll wait for you to educate all of us.

misd-agin
30th Aug 2010, 01:12
California issue ("second") got all screwed up. PTH said it was the largest state. Then said 'by population'(???). It's the most populated state, size doesn't matter (in this case).

PTH - What would I do with a tail pipe fire? WGAF? What would you do if you're upside down and you got a wheel well fire light?

This is about the JB guys. I'm guessing they didn't have a guy on a ground chord giving them an outside perspective. Now exactly what conditions existed that makes you decide an evacuation is, or isn't, required?

Do we even know if they commanded the evac???? Buddy of mine had an evac...passengers started it due to a wait...wait for it.....a tire fire. He's on the PA trying to stop them. Mad rush for the exits. At some point he decided, with tire smoke entering the a/c due to the open exits, that maybe there'd be less issues if people just evacuated.

p51guy
30th Aug 2010, 02:14
I had a guy pushing me back in an MD80 say start #1, start #2 then start #3. I read back everything he said. I would trust this guy to know the difference between a tailpipe fire and an engine fire if he doesn't know how many engines I have? If you don't know for sure it is a tailpipe fire spend the bucks with the bottle in case he is wrong. In the air is a different story. Sometimes the wind can blow the flames back causing an observer confusion.

protectthehornet
30th Aug 2010, 02:35
forget it...just forget it. evacuate if you smell anything bad...or even if the guy next to you farts.

that's fine...the slides need checking once in awhile anyway.

and that md80 story...I saw it happen...no fire warning in the cockpit...shot the bottles for nothing...cuz they don't cover the tailpipe.

I was in a different plane at DCA...and the mechanic for the other airline was on ground yelling at the crew to NOT SHOOT THE BOTTLES.

it was fun to watch as the nacelles expanded with each bottle going off.

Vulcancruiser
30th Aug 2010, 04:26
September 30, 2007

Airbus Lands With Parking Brake Set Email this article |Print this article

By Russ Niles, Editor-in-Chief





British authorities say an airline's procedures have changed, and Airbus is installing a warning system on its aircraft after the pilot of a A319 landed the aircraft with parking brake set. All four mains blew after the landing but the aircraft stayed on the runway and no one was hurt in the incident at Leeds Bradford Airport, according to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch report. The report says the aircraft commander was the non-flying pilot and was preoccupied with tower weather reports. When the flying pilot called for flaps, the captain mistakenly hit the brakes. The first officer called a second time for flaps after they didn't come down the first time and the captain got the right control. The report says both pilots missed procedures and visual cues that would have alerted them to situation. After the aircraft skidded to a halt, the captain then asked the first officer to set the parking brake and he discovered it was on. There's no word on discipline for either pilot.

Avweb

protectthehornet
31st Aug 2010, 01:52
I looked at some pictures of an EMB190 that landed with its parking brakes set. Not so very different than the JetBlue airbus in sacto.

someone might find them and post them...from 2005...couldn't see any slides though.

misd-agin
31st Aug 2010, 02:43
PTH - it was fun to watch as the nacelles expanded with each bottle going off.




OK, how much did they expand????

protectthehornet
31st Aug 2010, 03:11
they expanded visibly and shrunk again when the bottle had completed discharge...imagine your cheeks are holding in a burp.

VFD
11th Sep 2010, 17:24
Prelim is out.
F/O stirring the paint, brake set at 5100 msl on approach.
Evac by the book after ATC reporting fire and smoke.
Aircraft came to a stop 2000 ft from touchdown.

The first officer called a second time for flaps after they didn't come down the first time and the captain got the right control
No reference to second call but CVR will be interesting.

Airbus is installing a warning system on its aircraft after the pilot of a A319 landed the aircraft with parking brake set.
Is this an operator option on A318-A321?

VFD

AKAAB
11th Sep 2010, 18:02
Wasn't JB one of few airlines that objected to 1500 hrs min. for pilots? How do their pilot experience levels compare to their competitors?
I've been at JB for ten years and the lowest time new hire I can recall was about 4000 hours and that was six years ago. We don't have any 1500hr wonders on our roster than I'm aware of.

protectthehornet
11th Sep 2010, 19:07
akaab

if you are with jet blue...can you tell us what happened at sacramento? beyond what is known here.

Diesel8
13th Sep 2010, 23:10
Wasn't JB one of few airlines that objected to 1500 hrs min. for pilots?

Much like AKAAB, I have been here ten years and never heard of that one!

bizdev
23rd Sep 2010, 08:10
The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) says pilots of a JetBlue Airbus A320 that experienced landing difficulties at the Sacramento International airport on 26 August had mistakenly engaged the aircraft's parking brake during the approach.

Come on you Bus experts - how is this possible - is there no warning light/sound? And should the anti-skid prevent a landing with locked brakes?

hetfield
23rd Sep 2010, 08:17
To my knowledge, 320 is a couple of years ago..., no warning BUT on MEMO page "PARKING BRAKE ON".

No anti skid, it's inhibited.

PA-28-180
23rd Sep 2010, 08:25
Was pretty much done to death already here:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/425391-jetblue-airbus-blows-tires-evac-sacramento-3.html

protectthehornet,
Most of the times I tend to agree with your comments but I cannot believe you actually believe on this one:
Quote:
first off, my friend, an airbus guy, says that maybe the crew was fooling around with the parking brake switch in flight.
which I find quite incredible. First of all, because if one "plays" with the parking brake switch in the air, it will activate the Master Caution and the ECAM will display "Parking Brake On" (if memory serves me well). There is no chance to unintentionally leave the Parking Brake switched On, except if one intentionally pushes the ECAM "Emergency Clear" push-button to make it disappear from the WD/SD and latter on forgets to "Recall" it or switch the Parking Brake to Off...
If this was the case, those pilots could be facing serious consequences... and without a prelim report, I really prefer to believe that something else must have happened before launching some sort of anathema against our colleagues of profession.


I don't think the bus allows you to select max braking in the air any longer, just read the manual to refresh my memory and it says no. In the past I remember it being possible, but with the statement from AB "not recommended for landing!"

I too have heard it rumored that the parking brake was selected on, I hope it wasn't the case and that it was indeed a BSCU


Prelim is out.
F/O stirring the paint, brake set at 5100 msl on approach.
Evac by the book after ATC reporting fire and smoke.
Aircraft came to a stop 2000 ft from touchdown.
Quote:
The first officer called a second time for flaps after they didn't come down the first time and the captain got the right control
No reference to second call but CVR will be interesting.
Quote:
Airbus is installing a warning system on its aircraft after the pilot of a A319 landed the aircraft with parking brake set.
Is this an operator option on A318-A321?

VFD

glad rag
23rd Sep 2010, 08:25
No doubt there will be the usual deluge of -ve A posts shortly, however the clue to

"And should the anti-skid prevent a landing with locked brakes?"

is in the terminology "PARKING BRAKE ON"

does your cars handbrake engage the ABS??:(

bizdev
23rd Sep 2010, 08:56
I don't think that this is a good analogy - in a car the normal brakes are hydraulic whereas the handbrake is usually independant and mechanical.

In aircraft I have worked on in the past, the handbrake puts inputs into the same servo valves as the foot brakes - which is also controlled by the anti-skid computer.

If I recall - although this is not directly connected - on the BAC1-11 you could (if you really were so inclined) land with the foot brakes already depressed prior to touch down as the brakes would be held off until spin-up. I have not heard of anyone trying it though :}

So, I had assumed that modern technology would have provided some similar protection - but clearly not.

SpamCanDriver
23rd Sep 2010, 08:58
Not in my car no!

But on Boeings it does to prevent this problem from occuring!

protectthehornet
23rd Sep 2010, 14:57
POST 14

I mention the parking brake scenario.

Looks like my friend was right.

Wonder what you naysayers say now?

glad rag
23rd Sep 2010, 23:15
I don't think that this is a good analogy:D

So just when would you "knowingly" apply the parking brake then?

OR,

If you were to be an an operator, when do think it would say, on your pre landing checks, brakes check, ...... , parking brake, OFF?

WELL?:confused:

PS sorry DILIGAF.

bizdev
24th Sep 2010, 07:51
I do not understand your sarcasm. The NTSB have reported that the parking brake was set prior to landing. Now this was either set by mistake or there was a technical fault of some sort. So my question was related to whether there was some sort of protection on the Airbus - it seems from another poster that there is protection on Boeings :bored:

VFD
24th Sep 2010, 12:58
"And should the anti-skid prevent a landing with locked brakes?"

is in the terminology "PARKING BRAKE ON"


Anti-skid basically works by seeing the wheel speed slow down or stop in relation to other wheels. One bad sensor on stand or in que with park brake bingo release brakes... err no

Adding a line of code simple as: an engine turning + no weight on wheels + park brake = output of what ever alarm, bell, banger, clanger, or whatever bitch'n betty statement you would prefer.

VFD

Oval3Holer
28th Sep 2010, 15:17
What kind of airplane designer would allow the parking brake to be set if the WOW switch indicates "airborne"? Those at Boeing don't. Why do those at Airbus?

AKAAB
11th Oct 2010, 20:16
I can't add much to the NTSB preliminary report, but I here is my theory from what I've heard.

Does this sound plausible?

PM (Capt) doing multiple tasks in a high workload environment.
PF (FO) calls for Flaps - does not get them as expected (PM had unintentionally selected parking brake instead of flaps.)
PF calls for Flaps a second time.
PF because of delay getting flaps in - now needs to go down and slow down in a hurry - wants to use full speedbrakes, so...

PF disconnects autopilot - while holding the Emergency Cancel button to keep the A/P disconnect from sounding. (Not SOP.)
Emergency Cancel for routine A/P disconnect actually cancels Parking Brake On ECAM by sheer happenstance.
Both miss green Parking Brake On on the status section on lower display unit. (Maybe it should be amber.)

That's my best guess based on what little I've heard around the hangar.
.
.
.

hetfield
11th Oct 2010, 20:38
PF disconnects autopilot - while holding the Emergency Cancel button to keep

That's a NO NO according OUR SOP !

infrequentflyer789
12th Oct 2010, 15:32
What kind of airplane designer would allow the parking brake to be set if the WOW switch indicates "airborne"?

Probably the same kind that design the AT to ground-idle the throttles while the WOW switch still indicates airborne (and continues to do so even as the plane goes into stall)...

Those at Boeing don't. Why do those at Airbus?

Sounds like the same kind in both places.

Probably due to the same design decsion in both cases: allow the action (WOW switch may be broken) but give warning and/or obvious feedback to the pilot, and let them override/correct it - after all, the pilot will know whether or not they are on the ground.