US Air PHL

[jlsmith]

I'm reading on Twitter than US Air plane crashed at PHL...

[AR1]

This? https://twitter.com/han_horan/status/444240397427306496/photo/1

[mjtibbs]

Witness Account:



Sitting in the A-West lounge, just watched what I think was a US A319 bounce twice on takeoff from 27L, then have front gear collapse at high speed. Can't see where it stopped but smoke from the west end of 27L. Will update as I see more.

Update 6:28pm, listening to tower in LiveATC.net ... aircraft evacuating, emergency vehicles en route, people walking around near aircraft.

Update 6:30pm - emergency vehicles told to take care due to # of people walking around, probably thinking of the Asiana SFO incident where someone was run over. All PHL departures and arrivals halted airport at "alert 2" status per tower.

Update 6:40pm - no more smoke from the area of where the aircraft likely stopped. I'm still shaking and I was only watching from afar. Will type up my recollection shortly. No pics and can't see where it wound up from the west end of the A-West lounge. Hope everyone's getting out OK, would have been some pretty strong G-forces from what I saw.

Update 6:50pm - tower reports A320 aircraft involved.

Here's what I saw ... at approx 6:26 pm or so, I was in the US Airways Club in Terminal A-West over gate A15, able to see roughly the eastern half of runway 27L. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw a plane get 30-50 ft in the air, then come down and bounce on the runway, then be airborne for another 2-3 seconds, then land with more weight towards the front landing gear. Front gear collapsed, sparks on the runway, it then skid out of my line of sight. Light white smoke visible for about 7-10 min afterwards. Winds are still pretty strong here, but I doubt that was the primary cause. Weather otherwise clear and sunny here.

Update 6:53pm - airport on alert 1 status, should reopen runways 27R and 35.

Update 6:56pm - steady number of ambulances still passing the terminals west towards the accident site. No idea on injuries.

Update 7:05pm - thanks to one of my coworkers via Twitter, this is report is encouraging: https://www.facebook.com/DennisFee/p...?stream_ref=10 I still do not know which flight # it was.


Source: Just Witnessed US Accident at PHL - FlyerTalk Forums (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/us-airways-dividend-miles-pre-merger/1560217-just-witnessed-us-accident-phl.html)

[CAD55]

US airways see twitter people seen leaving the plane

[flt001]

"Dennis Fee from Philadelphia just posted this on Facebook. He was on a @USAirways flight." - @JimmyStyle twitter.

Note almost all have hand luggage :(

http://i.imgur.com/fqVJoYZ.jpg

[Melax]

Departure Stall ??

[papershuffler]

Twitter says tyre (or rather 'tire') blown on take off/front landing gear issue. (Just search twitter for US Airways.)

That wouldn't tally with the account above? Result of or cause?

[Simplythebeast]

Front undercarriage collapsed on takeoff apparently.

[MikeNYC]

Read elsewhere (unconfirmed) that the aircraft was briefly airborne before rejecting.

[Simplythebeast]

Good to see Pax got their belongings from overhead lockers before strolling off!

[FactionOne]

Fascinating account above; reads quite peculiarly. Imagine good lengths of pavement at the field, and can't help wondering how far down they'd got at the first bounce.

Slats extended, so there's one thing off the list..

Hope all are OK. I guess the armfuls of hand luggage are as reassuring as they are enraging.

[YeuEmMaiMai]

any more information on this? How would a blown tire cause an airplane to bounce on the runway during takeoff?

[papershuffler]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BipP_unIUAIiKWh.jpg
Trent Brock ‏@TrentBrock (https://twitter.com/TrentBrock)[/URL] US Airways jet did get airborne, but captain elected to abort takeoff. Nose gear collapsed on return. PIC: Will Jager [URL="http://t.co/KbrcEkyG6v"]pic.twitter.com/KbrcEkyG6v (https://twitter.com/TrentBrock/status/444260015692865536)

[Lost in Saigon]

There is a video on this page that shows smoke coming from the rear of the left engine. It looks to me like fuel is leaking into the shutdown engine. You can hear the familiar rattle of turbine blades windmilling from the high winds.

Philadelphia Airport Plane Crash: All Flights Grounded at Philly Airport (+Photos) (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/560760-philadelphia-airport-plane-crash-all-flights-grounded-at-philly-airport/)

[mseyfang]

Flight seems to be US 1702 KPHL-KFLL. A320 149 pax aboard. Passengers evacuated after botched takeoff at PHL (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/Passengers_evacuated_after__.html)

[OD100]

Anyone break their neck doing the evac out of L2? Geez!

[Capn Bloggs]

Anyone break their neck doing the evac out of L2? Geez!
The cabin crew will assess the outside threats and open exits as required...

"Evacuate, Evacuate, Front and overwing exits only..." :cool:

How would a blown tire cause an airplane to bounce on the runway during takeoff?
It wouldn't. I'll bet it blew when the "landing" occurred.

[frankpgh]

Windshear on takeoff? The wind was NASTY in Pittsburgh overnight and would match Philly's experience today. We dropped over 60 degrees in temperature in less than 12 hours and will be back up another 50 degrees tomorrow.

I've read that the aircraft was airborne momentarily. We're not talking inexperienced pilots at USAirways. So if they were airborne one would assume they reached the proper V2 at least, right?

Human Factors - we all know they shouldn't take their bags... I would "ass"ume that if it was dire consequences most wouldn't care about the bags. Maybe it wasn't overly violent that many PAX grabbed bags thinking it wasn't as serious?

Just pondering...:confused:

[thcrozier]

Is the gear collapsed or just buried in the dirt?

[Daifly]

I would have imagined that if the aircraft was sitting 15(?) degrees nose down with smoke coming out of the engine that you'd leave your bags... Guess you can't model humans!

I randomly keep my passport on me until we are airborne as I live in a part of the world where I figure if you had a problem on departure and ended up back in the terminal with nothing that you'd be trapped forever without a passport. Guess I'm self-modelling and would really also grab my briefcase - and tear the slide as I went down it. Or just sat on it not moving if I'd gone out of L1 in this case...

[hitchens97]

SLF here.

Clearly this is after V1. Under what circumstances do you abort after being airbourne?

[hitchens97]

Really taking hand luggage off in an emergency situation should get you on the TSA's "No Fly List"

[cactusbusdrvr]

Hitchens - you don't in a transport category jet. You might in a Piper Cub with 7000 feet of runway remaining. You don't do that in PHL.

[g450cpt]

Obviously after V1 the crew should continue even though debris took out an engine. What is the possibility that both engines failed due to nose tire(s) failure FODing both engines?

[mseyfang]

This was another fine example of the stellar airmanship exhibited by the US Airways East pilots.

Blew a tire at or after V1. Chunks of tire go into engine, where it does assorted damage to said engine, resulting in smoke and flame. Aircraft airborne, crew decides to reject the t/o (low altitude turn back) after being airborne and slams the nose wheel back on the runway in an attempt to force it back down.

That's the word coming out right now, lets see how this gets spun.

The east pilots have damaged at least a dozen airplanes since the merger with America West. Their level of professionalism matches their level of integrity.

This kind of conjecture, and the aspersions therein, really don't belong on a public board for all the obvious reasons. You simply don't reject T/O past V1 except in a handful of highly unusual circumstances where the airplane won't fly; to do otherwise renders the concept of V1 meaningless.

Good luck with the merger with AA. IMO, you're all playing right into Doug's hands with this kind of stuff.

MODS: feel free to delete this post if it's beyond the pale.

[mseyfang]

Obviously after V1 the crew should continue even though debris took out an engine. What is the possibility that both engines failed due to FOD?

Highly unlikely. If due to a burst tire/tyre; debris would tend to be thrown aft rather than into the intake; worst case would on first glance seem to be one engine being lost which would not be cause to reject T/O once airborne. Hard to see a burst tire taking out both engines. That said, I wasn't there and will let the NTSB do their job on this one.

[etrang]

Pax will always try and take hand luggage with them in an evacuation, as has been seen countless times before. In an emergency situation people react instinctively, no amount of pre-flight briefing is going to change that.

Instead of blaming the pax for acting instinctively in what is no doubt their first and only evacuation, criticism should be directed at the airlines or regulators. If you don't want pax taking their luggage in an evacuation don't let them take it into the cabin in the first place.

[YeuEmMaiMai]

I thought it was ALWAYS prudent to get airborne after V1 and definitely V2 and then sort the situation out?. are not most twin jets capable of taking off on 1 engine?

[warmkiter]

Instead of helping elderly or injured, this young lady had enough time to put on her phone and film herself freaking out...

Ok, thats kind of understandable, but post the film in public and become famous for beeing a freaked out blond goes beyond me...


Selfie-Video nach Startabbruch: «Das Flugzeug brennt!» ? News ? Blick (http://www.blick.ch/news/selfie-video-nach-startabbruch-das-flugzeug-brennt-id2732399.html)

Ps. An overrun because of a tirefailure close to V1 is not necessary pilots error. You just lost atleast 25% of your braking ability. Propably more if the next tire in the same gear goes too...

Glad everybody got out and the only scratches are on ego an a/c

[lomapaseo]

Some of the speculation here seems to revolve around a main gear tire failure, yet I could not figure out where this rumor came from.

The only thing I could read into the cited reports was a post-abort-decision nose gear failure. At what time an engine became involved is not clear.

[flying the edge]

I was taught that it was better to get airborne at V1 -10 knots if the problem was the tires than risk aborting the takeoff but , we still do not have all the facts ....

[windowseat]

Considering the hundreds or thousands of CCTVs at any major airport it always surprised me that there weren't permanent cameras at each end of each runway and on the tower. Investigators always seem to have to rely on planespotter's footage.

We're going skiing this weekend and as usual I can now look at half a dozen live webcams from the resort to see snow conditions. Seems a bit backward for our technologically advanced industry to not have something similar.

Perhaps they do now but I haven't seen it used in any recent investigations.

It took the Columbia disaster for NASA to set up high resolution cameras on each launch.

[barit1]

I thought it was ALWAYS prudent to get airborne after V1 and definitely V2 and then sort the situation out?. are not most twin jets capable of taking off on 1 engine?

Stick around PPRUNE and you'll learn. Either by 1) asking uneducated questions and getting roasted, or 2) watching silently and absorbing knowledge.

[Dave's brother]

The fact is that pilots and cabin crew train for these sorts of situations. SLF do not. I know there's a safety briefing and they have a safety card to read but that is not the same as the sort of training in evacuation procedures that the pros get.

Point being: the overwhelming majority of SLF will never experience anything like this. Virtually no one will go through it twice (and if I find myself sitting beside a PAX who has, then I want off that plane before he has a third emergency situation).

So - when faced with extreme and unusual high-stress situations, people react in extreme and unusual high-stress ways. I'm no psychiatrist but I bet that what's going on is a sub-conscious process of trying to grasp onto something that is normal: "I'm getting off the plane. I've done this before. I must get my hand luggage..."

Moreover, they probably reckon that, as they have to stand and wait their turn to get the hell out, they might as well just grab their bag. Admittedly, they aren't thinking that it might impede their progress or tear the slide - but then, these people aren't professionally trained at getting the hell out of an airplane quickly.

I'm sure there's a reasonable number of idiots on these planes, too - but I just think that sometimes SLF needs to be cut a little bit of slack.

[CrashManII]

"Point being: the overwhelming majority of SLF will never experience anything like this. Virtually no one will go through it twice (and if I find myself sitting beside a PAX who has, then I want off that plane before he has a third emergency situation)."

I'll make sure I introduce myself before the door closes---because I've been on two of them. Last summer's LaGuardia nosedive and another SWA flight where a football sized hole blew into the top of the airplane at 35k ft., instantly depressurizing the airplane.

With regards to comments about taking hand luggage off the airplane in these situations, we were on the runway at LaGuardia for several minutes before they opened the doors and started exiting the airplane via the slides. (And, IMO, the FAs did a very poor job of handling that entire situation---virtually no commands, no positive reinforcement, nothing. I was in an exit row beside the door waiting on their command--none came. Even after I asked loudly but calmly for their guidance. Conversely, the SWA FAs on the other flight were fantastic, moving from person to person down the aisles quickly but methodically--looking each passenger in the eyes with confidence to make sure everyone had oxygen masks on and working. And continued the reassurance until the plane landed 20-30 minutes later.)

We had plenty of time just waiting on the LGA flight to grab a computer bag or handbag. I didn't see anyone trying to get their luggage out, but smaller bags simply didn't hold anyone up. (All the while the smell of smoke was getting stronger.)

With regards to getting our luggage back, we waited several hours in the terminal for NTSB interviews and still didn't get our luggage. I finally had mine shipped to me about 4 days later. I read where one passenger, who left his laptop bag on the plane, had it stolen.

After the first flight, I reassured myself that lightning never strikes twice and I would never encounter another. After the second incident, I only fly if I absolutely have to and it's not a pleasurable experience anymore.

[FIRESYSOK]

Rotating at V1-10?

If you lose and engine because of the debris, at v1-10 you may not have:

Vmcg,

Vmca

Who is teaching this technique. Inquiring minds would like to know.

[Old Boeing Driver]

Looks like USAIR may be teaching it

[mixduptransistor]

I'm not excusing passengers getting off the plane with their belongings, but it's also not surprising when there are first person stories of $3000 laptops going missing after the Southwest accident in New York.

If the plane isn't on fire or in multiple pieces, it's not hard to see how people would grab their stuff. Yes, it was an emergency, but if it weren't a frantic "get out in 30 seconds" environment, they probably deplaned relatively calmly and slowly.

[No Fly Zone]

"... and PLEASE Do Not Forget to take ALL Of your Carry On Bags With You... " Those PAX are IDIOITS!!:ugh:

[rog747]

glad all out OK

listen - most airlines allow now everything but the kitchen sink to be taken on board in the cabin - so much so if you get on last you cant even find space for
your coat -
people will not pay for luggage where they can 1 or 2 biggish carry ons for free - so what do you expect??

Mr and Mrs average Joe will take their bags with them in a crisis - end of

blame the airlines - the pax are not idiots they are sheep - all the crew can do is get everyone off as quick as they can and not waste time telling pax to leave their bags behind when they arrive at the exit door with 2 carry-on (yeah not one - but 2! LOL)

time to rethink what's allowed in the cabin again - you cannot blame the pax sorry - WE (us pros's) might just grab our phones/passport and specs but most will NOT

that has been shown time and time again last few years

see etrang post #27 he knows what i am on about

[PlatinumFlyer]

The one thing that is a MUST to have with you when you evacuate is your car keys.

[Yancey Slide]

listen - most airlines allow now everything but the kitchen sink to be taken on board in the cabin - so much so if you get on last you cant even find space for
your coat -
people will not pay for luggage where they can - so what do you expect??

Good on United for finally clamping down on this silliness and enforcing the carry on size limit.

[rog747]

i did post a cabin pic of one of our a/c in 1984 which only had hat racks so you simply had to put your bag under the seat in front of you

but my post was deleted

puts it in perceptive when seeing today's pics of the USAir pax evac with loads of big bags again

[rp122]

Instead of helping elderly or injured, this young lady had enough time to put on her phone and film herself freaking out...

Ok, thats kind of understandable, but post the film in public and become famous for beeing a freaked out blond goes beyond me...


Selfie-Video nach Startabbruch: «Das Flugzeug brennt!» ? News ? Blick (http://www.blick.ch/news/selfie-video-nach-startabbruch-das-flugzeug-brennt-id2732399.html)
The third error is to hold the camera the wrong way up.

The fourth error is to not notice/care about the third error and upload anyway.

[Hotel Tango]

Is the gear collapsed or just buried in the dirt?

There's always one isn't there :rolleyes::ugh:

[kenish]

On the news it looked like there's significant wrinkling in the top fuselage above the L1 door and forward of the antenna. However, the camera angle was bad and it was difficult to see any detail. The aircraft is 14 years old- it may be destined for a new life as beer cans!

Also note that almost everyone in the photos is dressed for FLL, the destination. Air temp at PHL was 32F/0c at the time of the accident.

[flying the edge]

I wasn't suggesting to rotate at V1-10 , but execute a normal takeoff at VR and get airborne and sort the problem out if the problem is related to tires
Maybe you would prefer to do an RTO at V1 -10 with a fully loaded aircraft on a short runway ?

[rgbrock1]

Hotel Tango wrote:

There's always one isn't there

I, unfortunately, fear there there are much more than just one. (Evident in the thread directly above this one.)

[FIRESYSOK]

I wasn't suggesting to rotate at V1-10 , but execute a normal takeoff at VR and get airborne and sort the problem out if the problem is related to tires


I see what you're getting at. Making a go-decision is normally best course of action with a tyre burst, however if an engine fails near-simultaneously, you've got a lot on your plate and going into the air isn't the worst idea if you're close to V1. It's a complex scenario and not every pilot will make the right decision every time. Agree.

[barti01]

barit1, respect sir

[flying the edge]

I agree with you ... AIB put out a briefing recommending to get airborne in the V1 -20 to V1 range if a tire bursts and doesn't damage the engine .

This incident occurred to me a few years ago going out of rome Ciampino down to Sharm in Egypt with a full load of pax . I decided to get airborne than doing an RTO near V1 ...

[Shore Guy]

It isn't just SLF that try to get their bags off the airplane when they evacuate.....

FedEx DC-10-10F Flight 647 Crash Witness Video - YouTube

[jboe]

anyone who has flown transport cat airplanes had this drilled in them over and over. Lots of examples of blown tires on t/o causing post V1 stopping decision which almost always was a disaster are on the books.

On this on at PHL...maybe tire popped on t/o, fod entered left engine, pilot "derotated' hard which collapsed nose gear...hope not,,,but cvr/fdr will tell the tale...we'll see.

[Runaway Gun]

Why are people suggesting you rotate prior to V1??

And who are these people assuming that it has reached V2?

[glendalegoon]

reviewing the FAA literature/Boeing literature, it indicates that the moment a tire is lifted off the runway, the vibration may bet much worse as there is a dampening effect when the tire is in contact with the runway.

could the nose have lifted off, the tire shook MORE violently and a decision to put it back on made?

[blimey]

5 knots below V1/VR enormous bang.
P1 go minded and begins rotate at his V1/VR (company SOPS - doesn't have to rely on the call?).
P2 perceives imminent danger prior to his ASI hitting V1/VR and closes thrust levers.

The safe/unsafe (life/death?) decide, communicate, and act whether to get airborne or stop occurs over a period of one-banana-two. Always tricky accelerating just before V1/VR.

[Mark654321]

If it was wind-shear you have no choice in whether or not you land after V1, you just loose lift and fall out of the sky! Don't you?

[glendalegoon]

blimey

the reject/go no go decision is up to the captain at every airline I can think of unless the captain is incapacitated. the copilot does not make the decision and the captain is the one to actually take control of the plane and reject (assuming the copilot was flying the takeoff).

mark654321. while windshear/microburst can cause a plane to crash, it does not ALWAYS cause it to crash (go down and land)>

it depends on the severity of the shear, capability of the plane, capability and skill of the crew.

pretty sure that KPHL has windshear detecting equipment , even beyond the old LLWS alert system, but the much better doppler.

[M.Mouse]

the reject/go no go decision is up to the captain at every airline I can think of unless the captain is incapacitated. the copilot does not make the decision and the captain is the one to actually take control of the plane and reject (assuming the copilot was flying the takeoff).

I know of at least one airline where a co-pilot can call stop in certain circumstances and if they are handling they also carry out the initial actions because they also handle their own power.

[pattern_is_full]

Gonna have to wait for some more details on this one.

I can see a "fr'instance" where they catch a headwind gust just around V1 (doesn't have to be classic "microburst wind shear", just a gust), that boosts airspeed enough for an unintentional liftoff in ground effect.

Just as the PIC is thinking "abort" due to vibration and bang of nose tire failure. Maybe he puts in a little nose-down pitch just as the gust fades away - or maybe he doesn't, but the loss of the wind (coincidentally just as they get high enough to clear ground effect) puts her down hard anyway.

Bouncy-bouncy-CRUNCH. Fortunately the AB survives better than the jet at Aspen.

[iskyfly]

The incident aircraft was already 30-50 feet in the air. So much so that the tower controller issued take off clearance to the aircraft that was already lined up and waiting on the same runway. Incident aircraft touched back down and bounced up then landed nose gear first hence gear collapse. 2nd aircraft reported to tower that something was happening on the runway in front of them and decided not to take off.

[jboe]

If that's true...20-30' in the air...... it doesn't matter whose decision ( C/O or F/O) it was. It just ain't gonna work!

[Busbert]

Certainly on the later generation Airbus FBW aircraft, there is a bounced landing mode, where the aircraft deploys the spoilers after the second bounce. This is to positively make sure that the aircraft lands, although the outcome can be a severe hard landing - the lift is effectively destroyed.
I investigated a severe hard landing where the pilot had been completely taken aback by this function -the aircraft dropped like a stone from about 10 feet. The aircraft behaved as per design, but it took the PF completely by surprise.

It is possible that there was severe vibration from the NLG during rotation as the nosewheels left the ground (I am aware of this happening, and being particularly startling as the NLG attachments are effectively under the cockpit floor). That could possibly have given a 'surprise' to the crew at a critical point.

[WHBM]

Update 6:30pm - emergency vehicles told to take care due to # of people walking around, probably thinking of the Asiana SFO incident where someone was run over.
Whatever is wrong with US emergency crews that they have to be cautioned by ATC in this statement-of-the-blindingly-obvious manner, feeling that otherwise you get "San Francisco" incidents. Even third world countries train fully and adequately for this.

[PantLoad]

So, what does the Airbus FCOM say about a blown tire (tyre) on takeoff?
And, what is the USAirways SOP say?

[cosmiccomet]

DECISION MAKING:
"If a tire fails within 20 knots of V1, unless debris of the tire has caused noticeable engine parameters fluctuations, it is better to get airborne,..."
AO-020 P 2/22 17 ABR 2013

[Desert185]

Quote:
Update 6:30pm - emergency vehicles told to take care due to # of people walking around, probably thinking of the Asiana SFO incident where someone was run over.
Whatever is wrong with US emergency crews that they have to be cautioned by ATC in this statement-of-the-blindingly-obvious manner, feeling that otherwise you get "San Francisco" incidents. Even third world countries train fully and adequately for this.

We're becoming a nanny state like many of the countries in Europe. People are dumbing down while government overreach is dumbing up. :ugh: :mad:

[Jet Jockey A4]

I can't wait to hear more on this accident especially some real data.

I want to know if it did indeed get to 50 feet in the air before someone decided to "Reject".

[safetypee]

See ‘Rejecting after V1; why does it still happen?’ (www.nlr-atsi.nl/downloads/rejecting-a-take-off-after-v1-why-does-it-stil.pdf), note the incident on page 15.

[inchman254]

We're becoming a nanny state like many of the countries in Europe. People are dumbing down while government overreach is dumbing up.

I think this falls closer to "crew resource management" than government overreaching.

What's wrong with someone pointing out a potential threat in a high stress situation?

[Jet Jockey A4]

Anymore news on this accident.

I'd like to hear factual info on what happened here.

Find it hard to believe no news as come out yet from anyone including the FAA or NTSB.

Kind of fed up of the "Merry Go round" of MH370 with all its speculations and yet this accident should be even more interesting.

[iskyfly]

AIN Notices Report (http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:96:::::P96_ENTRY_DATE,P96_MAKE_NAME,P96_FATAL_FLG:14-MAR-14,AIRBUS)


"AIRCRAFT ABORTED TAKE OFF DUE TO SMOKE IN THE NUMBER ONE ENGINE. AFTER THE NOSE TIRE TOUCHED DOWN, THE NOSE GEAR COLLAPSED, PHILADELPHIA, PA."

[Lost in Saigon]

"AIRCRAFT ABORTED TAKE OFF DUE TO SMOKE IN THE NUMBER ONE ENGINE. AFTER THE NOSE TIRE TOUCHED DOWN, THE NOSE GEAR COLLAPSED, PHILADELPHIA, PA."
I have two questions....

How did the crew know there was smoke in the #1 engine?

Why did they reject after V1?

[Jet Jockey A4]

The AIN report doesn't give any new info or especially any new/official details.

I'm curious to know if the aircraft was indeed airborne (30 to 50 feet in the air) when someone decided to "reject" the takeoff and slam it back down on the runway.

[Obama57]

NASA has had video for launches for decades. One could watch any number of camera angles replayed on the NASA channel in the states.

BTW KPHL winds 360/10G18. Straight X-wind.

[iskyfly]

Disregarding for a moment the issues with:
a. RTO decision making &

b. ASDA

..... THIS IS AN AIRBUS!

Several things happen when the
jet is in Landing Mode.
As mentioned above there are both partial spoiler
and full spoiler deflection capabilities and also once the ground air switch is
made only 50% roll control is available.

This A320 was not in LAND mode
it was in TAKE-OFF mode.

The computer can let you do lots of this but
it also restricts you from many things too.

After they got airborne the
jet blends into flight mode.
The spoilers are disarmed & therefore the
will not auto deploy when you land again.
The jet is trying to fly, it is
not subject to the flight control laws as landing as F3 or F4 is not selected.


Trying to reject after airborne in an Airbus is very very hard to fly
because the aircraft is delighting you all the way!

Correct me if I am wrong, my understanding of airbus modes are;

Ground Mode
Flight Mode
Flare Mode

I find no reference to "LAND(ing)" mode and "TAKE-OFF" mode as mentioned in the quote above.

[flyboyike]

I'll make sure I introduce myself before the door closes---because I've been on two of them. Last summer's LaGuardia nosedive and another SWA flight where a football sized hole blew into the top of the airplane at 35k ft., instantly depressurizing the airplane.

With regards to comments about taking hand luggage off the airplane in these situations, we were on the runway at LaGuardia for several minutes before they opened the doors and started exiting the airplane via the slides. (And, IMO, the FAs did a very poor job of handling that entire situation---virtually no commands, no positive reinforcement, nothing. I was in an exit row beside the door waiting on their command--none came. Even after I asked loudly but calmly for their guidance. Conversely, the SWA FAs on the other flight were fantastic, moving from person to person down the aisles quickly but methodically--looking each passenger in the eyes with confidence to make sure everyone had oxygen masks on and working. And continued the reassurance until the plane landed 20-30 minutes later.)

We had plenty of time just waiting on the LGA flight to grab a computer bag or handbag. I didn't see anyone trying to get their luggage out, but smaller bags simply didn't hold anyone up. (All the while the smell of smoke was getting stronger.)

With regards to getting our luggage back, we waited several hours in the terminal for NTSB interviews and still didn't get our luggage. I finally had mine shipped to me about 4 days later. I read where one passenger, who left his laptop bag on the plane, had it stolen.

After the first flight, I reassured myself that lightning never strikes twice and I would never encounter another. After the second incident, I only fly if I absolutely have to and it's not a pleasurable experience anymore.


Damn, Bubba, you're bad luck....

[Silvio Pettirossi]

Incredible, looks like they took off without entering V-speeds, ignored warnings, didn't select TOGA and then aborted after being airborne! Could have been a lot worse! The plane is a W/O.

Pilots played role in US Airways 1702 crash: FAA - 12/12/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pilots-played-role-in-us-airways-1702-crash-faa-407032/)

[Lonewolf_50]

The computer needed those values to calculate takeoff power, and required their re-entry after a runway change.
At the risk of sounding like an old fart, I was under the impression that one has to know performance information like this before one takes off. The person needs to know this, whether or not the computer calculates it.
However, on reading this thread, it is interesting to learn that the aircraft and its automated systems has cascading/linked dependencies on certain data (take off data being pretty critical when flying heavies, eh?) so it isn't (upon reflection) surprising that the systems sent out alerts due to the data not being found as the algorithm's logic "expected" it to be.
Not a bad feature, in a general sense, given how much automation has been integrated into the various aircraft systems, but ...
a) who's in charge here?
b) how well does one know one's aircraft?

*return to lurk mode*

[Airbubba]

When it reached 80kt, an audible warning sounded “retard, retard, retard”, instructing the pilots to idle the throttles, the FAA report says. The first officer told the captain she had never heard that warning during take-off. “We’ll get that straight when we get airborne,” the captain responded.

Wow, its been a long time since I've flown a 'bus but I find it hard to believe a crew would ignore a takeoff warning at 80 knots. :eek:

Maybe 25 years ago in the '72 you might pull a breaker to cancel a warning on the takeoff roll if you were sure it was spurious. As several crashes have proven, this was not a good idea even back then.

But these days, every warning and message is logged 'for maintenance' and increasingly this 'de-identified safety data collection' will catch up with you.

I've done rejects (low speed) and go-arounds for procedural reasons in the modern era even though I 'knew' the gear was really down or the pack would reset in the climb. What used to be considered operational judgment based on experience and systems knowledge has evolved into CYA read the steps from the QRH into the CVR. And then write the fault into the logbook with the correct secret code numbers and letters from the FRM with cites from the FCOM as required.

Anyway, any A320 drivers know if the plane would have flown OK if the throttles (or whatever they are called on a 'bus) were put in TOGA position at the initial warning ding? Or, would they still have the 'retard' message at 80 knots since the thrust data was not input?

[peekay4]

Yes if the thrust levers had been moved to the TOGA detent, the lack of flex temp is ignored and the plane could have taken off at full thrust. (Assuming no other issues affecting engine performance).

[theXfactor]

Only the CA really knows why he decided to continue.
In the old days...or should I say old equipment, you would have just pushed the power up ...or thrust in the Airbus world.

If he would have fire-walled the thrust levers, he would have been ok.

I am new to the world of the Bus as I have spent many years in Boeing land.

[BRE]

If this had been a Korean or French airline, the bashing would have covered 10 pages by now...

[MrDK]

@BRE
If this had been a Korean or French airline, the bashing would have covered 10 pages by now... Who says that there is not some to come, even the Asiana at SFO took a couple of days before the bashing really started. Same with SWA at LGA.
Stuff does happen and blame will be cast, but one fact still remains which is that it has been 13+ years since a single life has been lost on a US mainline carrier. Credit here goes to both cockpit crews and to the manufactures of the frames.

[IcePack]

How many pilots now don't notice the time on the t/o run. Most I suspect. Too much reliance on the gizmo's. Varies a little by type, but if you ain't got to 100kts in 30 secs, something is wrong.

[slast]

According to the FlightGlobal extract, the ECAM message displayed “ENG THR LEVERS NOT SET; SET TOGA”, an instruction to set the throttles to take-off/go-around” power. The copilot...... read the first part of this message aloud, but not the instruction to increase power. The captain responded that “the power is set”, adding that he had advanced the throttles to the flex position."

So it is really a bit hard to blame the Airbus system, setting TOGA from Flex is simply firewalling the levers.

However if they are left in FLEX without a flex power computation I don't know what it would go to.

[peekay4]

However if they are left in FLEX without a flex power computation I don't know what it would go to.

The detent is FLX/MCT.

FLEX has arming and engaging phases. When the thrust levers are moved to FLX/MCT, but the FLEX conditions are not met, then FLEX mode will fail to engage.

That means the engines will stay at MCT, which is not enough for takeoff.

Hence the "retard, retard, retard" warning at 80 kts, which the pilots elected to ignore.

[slast]

Thanks. 24 years since I flew it so had forgotten a lot of details!

[fox niner]

My experince on airbus planes is about 0 minutes. The rest is on boeing A/C. What interests me is the way an airbus reacts to not inserting the V-speeds. Apparently you get no more that MCT thrust when you advance. How much is this MCT, in terms of % N1 ?
On a boeing aircraft, as long as the flaps are set, and you advance thrust levers to 100%, you will be able to fly. Pressing TOGA is not strictly necessary, i.e. It won't hinder the airplane from taking off....

[JammedStab]

I always check my killer items before takeoff-flaps, slats, trim, etc. But I also check V-speeds displayed and LNAV/VNAV displayed.

[bloom]

"I love you "I always" guys......... You're "always the guys" that are except 'this once" guy's!!!

[JammedStab]

"I love you "I always" guys......... You're "always the guys" that are except 'this once" guy's!!!

Just making a suggestion based on what I do. It would have broken the chain. Safety advocates "love" that sort of thing.

[Landflap]

BLOOM ; Damn you ! Spilled me coffee , again. Love it ! ICE-PAK; Brill. But they call that airmanship which is not taught these days. I am going to adopt this but, of course, I will tell everyone that it was MY idea. Always managed seat of the pants stuff. Non acceleration was something I would just feel. Still, always been a sensitive ass !

[mercurydancer]

Now the medications are interesting.

Fentanyl is an analgesic. Its a synthetic opioid and is very useful in both acute and chronic pain. It should most certainly have been declared to his supervisors that he was prescribed it.

Midazolam is interesting too. Its quite strong, even in mild doses, and in combination with fentanyl would be quite disabling, although 45 hours is well beyond the half life of the drugs, even combined.

I'm presuming the "stress test" relates to a cardiac test? Its a wonder he didnt fall asleep on the treadmill.

[enola-gay]

In the earlier part of this thread there was a lot of condemnation of PAX taking their handbags off the plane during evacuation and some folks saying they should be banned from flying again.

It looks to me from the pictures that they were carrying handbags not luggage. Presumably this baggage was stowed under seat in front and ready to grab without opening overhead stowage.

How would you survive if evacuated from an aircraft at a location thousands of miles from home, with no cash, no wallet, no credit cards, no passport, no driver license, no car keys, no house keys, no flight tickets, no hotel confirmation, no essential medication, no inhaler, etc? You would be just an anonymous bum that no-one can help.

How many days might it take for the authorities to inspect, verify and deliver your bag to you, or worse, it just gets burnt up in a post evacuation fire?

Most folks put all that survival paperwork and essential stuff in a grab-bag for just such an emergency. It won’t all go in your pocket, and it will be a high personal priority to take it with you.

The balance of risk and reward suggests that it is far preferable to deplane with a grab bag than be left at the mercy of circumstances. Most people know this, and despite what it might say in the flight “safety” briefing, most people will ignore it and take a grab bag. They know it makes sense.

[tubby linton]

In the old days of early efis airbus (A300) if was part of the prefight prep to extract a toga value and compute a flex value from the QRH based upon the assumed temperature from the performance chart.The assumed temperature was selected on the thrust rating panel and it computed an N1 which was checked against that on the bug card This plus the appropriate speeds were written on the bug card and then checked by your colleague.
In the less paper world of fbw Airbus ( no computation of power settings by the pilot) the target thrust appears in the upper right of the EWD and when you state thrust set you should compare this value with the actual thrust set. This is meant to have been achieved by 80kt. I doubt most airbus pilots would know roughly what a typical value of toga would be or the N1 for a full derated take off.

[glendalegoon]

enola-gay

Let's see. You evacuate a plane in one of America's largest cities. And you are thinking there would be no help for you beyond getting you a safe distance from a plane?

A woman is likely to keep her purse with her on her lap. A man has a wallet in his pants. Both would have credit cards and ID and perhaps cash. (at least my wallet would). Either way they could come easily with you (assuming reasonable sized purse for a lady) this is not to be confused with hand held luggage.

I keep my cellphone in my shirt pocket.

I keep essential meds for a family member in my shirt pocket and a list of other meds in my wallet.

and even IF I had all my clothing and belongings burned off my back, I would know that those brave firefighters would get me some place safe and someone would offer me help (American Red Cross).

AS to paying for the help at some future time, if the airline didn't come across willingly, they would be sued.

Evacuating with your luggage is the wrong thing to do and should be punishable by law if it ends up contributing to the death or injury of a fellow passenger.

Sorry, you would not be an anonymous bum. Help would be forthcoming. Mind you someone is unlikely to give you a mink stole if you lose yours, but someone will give you a blanket until things come together.

[enola-gay]

Good evening Glen.


I see your response was specifically about big American cities. What about the rest of the world?


1. Jakarta. I have colleagues who were burnt alive on a drilling rig in the Java Sea. Helicopter casevac to Jakarta without grab bag. Response by Indonesian immigration " no passport, no bags, no cash - no exit " . The captain of a KLM DC8 overheard the incident on radio. He held his aircraft at Kemayoran (as was) and went to the Indonesian immigration authorities to demand that he could casevac to Singapore. After several hours delay and intervention of KLM in Amsterdam and British Embassy in Jakarta, the casualties were allowed to leave for the burns unit in SIN


2. Nigeria/ Iraq/ . Try walking away from an aircraft incident without ID or handbag. Try getting prescription medication there.


Most people will take the risk/reward view and take a grab bag to be safe in person in an orderly evacuation. When has that ever resulted in a fatality on evacuation to your knowledge?

[glendalegoon]

enolagay

maybe I misread the title of this thread...USAIR PHL?

come on

if you travel to those ''exotic places"...all the best to you. But this thread is PHILADELPHIA. NOt a bad town.

[Smilin_Ed]

How would you survive if evacuated from an aircraft at a location thousands of miles from home, with no cash, no wallet, no credit cards, no passport, no driver license, no car keys, no house keys, no flight tickets, no hotel confirmation, no essential medication, no inhaler, etc?

I consider that every flight puts me in a survival situation. Everything above, except hotel confirmations, including 24 hours worth of essential medications, is on my person. A list of those essential meds is in each of two wallets which stay zipped in my pockets.

Wearing high-heeled shoes, taking wallets and passports out of pockets is simply stupid.

BE PREPARED!

[peekay4]

The captain of a KLM DC8 overheard the incident on radio. He held his aircraft at Kemayoran (as was) and went to the Indonesian immigration authorities to demand that he could casevac to Singapore.
Dude, Kemayoran closed like 30 years ago. :E

And back then, you didn't need your passport to deal with Indonesian immigration. A fiver would've sufficed. :ok:

Anyway, in emergencies, passengers are going to do what passengers are going to do. If you design procedures based on perfectly behaved passengers, well, prepare to be surprised.

There have been lots of cabin design and procedure changes over the years because of new insight about how passengers actually react in real life situations. Pushing, shoving, blocking exits, grabbing bags, inflating life vests inside the cabin, ignoring commands, fighting with flight attendants, fighting with each other, etc., etc.

[WingNut60]

KLM DC-8 at Kemayoran?
Maybe, but more likely Halim.

[Rick777]

Back when I was flying A320s we had a saying that TOGA always works. If anything doesn't look right just push it up. With the kind of winds they were having I probably would have been at TOGA anyway since that was our procedure for wind shear. It sounds like the captain really was asleep.

[JammedStab]

In the earlier part of this thread there was a lot of condemnation of PAX taking their handbags off the plane during evacuation and some folks saying they should be banned from flying again.

It looks to me from the pictures that they were carrying handbags not luggage. Presumably this baggage was stowed under seat in front and ready to grab without opening overhead stowage.

How would you survive if evacuated from an aircraft at a location thousands of miles from home, with no cash, no wallet, no credit cards, no passport, no driver license, no car keys, no house keys, no flight tickets, no hotel confirmation, no essential medication, no inhaler, etc? You would be just an anonymous bum that no-one can help.

How many days might it take for the authorities to inspect, verify and deliver your bag to you, or worse, it just gets burnt up in a post evacuation fire?

Most folks put all that survival paperwork and essential stuff in a grab-bag for just such an emergency. It won’t all go in your pocket, and it will be a high personal priority to take it with you.

The balance of risk and reward suggests that it is far preferable to deplane with a grab bag than be left at the mercy of circumstances. Most people know this, and despite what it might say in the flight “safety” briefing, most people will ignore it and take a grab bag. They know it makes sense.

Enola Gay,

I notice in your example you are justifying pax getting their bags under the seat in a fire situation prior to evacuation "How many days might it take for the authorities to inspect, verify and deliver your bag to you, or worse, it just gets burnt up in a post evacuation fire."

Based on tragedies in the past where pax died because others were blocking due to getting their stuff instead of going as fast as possible toward an exit....my policy that I have thought of in advance is this...if there is a fire and you are blocking me to get your stuff. I use all my force to knock you over and you get trampled by me and everyone else around as we move toward the exit and I will do it. I suggest this policy for everyone here as seconds matter.

We will worry about the hotel later. You might not have to.

[finfly1]

"Based on tragedies in the past where pax died because others were blocking due to getting their stuff"

Care to cite two or three specific examples of this?

[peekay4]

This is a very natural & logical thinking. But unfortunately, a few decades of research has also shown that this is also the wrong thing to do, because by knocking people down (i.e., those you perceive to be blocking you), you are turning the evacuation process into a "competitive evacuation" -- a "free for all" where everyone is pushing those in front, stampeding in a rush to get to the exit door.

It might not be a "guy getting a bag" in front of you, but maybe a mother trying to attend to her baby, or a kid that has stumbled, or an elderly person who's confused. Or maybe even a flight attendant who's assisting someone else. Are you going to knock them all down?

The research findings are a bit counterintuitive. But basically, if you have a small opening (door), and a large number of people whore are competing to get out of the same door, you will end up in a "jam" situation where everyone blocks everyone else.

So instead of getting out faster, you and everyone else end up getting trapped in the cabin. This has in the past resulted in total blockage of the exit doors, leading to numerous fatalities.

For further reading see the Cranfield experimental research done in the UK some years ago in response to the 1985 British Airtours Flight 28M (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/8_1988_g_bgjl.cfm) tragedy in Manchester. This was a rejected takeoff situation after an engine fire, where most passengers on the flight perished right on the runway due to smoke inhalation, as they were unable to quickly exit the plane.

There should have been enough time to evacuate the plane even with some door problems that they had, but the free-for-all "stampede" to the exit door trapped numerous people inside.

Cabin crews are trained to be extremely assertive in preventing this from happening and to maintain an orderly evacuation.

Your best bet to exit, as well as the best bet for all your fellow passengers, is to follow cabin crew instructions and to have the most orderly, cooperative exit possible.

[MrMachfivepointfive]

Care to cite two or three specific examples of this

Spantax 995. 1982.

[armchairpilot94116]

China Airlines crew did an awesome job in this evacuation on Okinawa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qyZFASOAe0

[chrisbl]

I don't understand all those who get on the aircraft and feel the need to slob out immediately. Their shoes come off, they seem to have half their clothes off etc.


Me personally, I never take my jacket off until we are safely airborne. If there was a need to evacuate the aircraft I would prefer not to be doing it in my sock or bare feet. The jacket also ensures I have my vitals for afterwards.


I never take my shoes off in flight. I don't want other people pi$$ all over my socks. The washrooms are pretty disgusting at times and when you as the cabin crew to clean them they can get really uppity about it.

[Lonewolf_50]

Glendale:
why should any passenger trust the airlines to take care of their important stuff? They can't, and many don't. Some probably do.

Once the story of a few missing laptops or brief cases goes viral, which they have already in this overly connected age, the impression is that the airline industry can't be trusted. You can't fight that by being outraged on PPRuNe.

As a passenger, you take care of yourself. You have to, nobody else will.

There a ladies' purses that are larger than the small over the shoulder laptop carrier that I limit myself to on my very rare trips in an commercial airliner.
I'll take that with me, thanks, and let the outraged on PPRuNe continue to waste bandwidth.

@peekay: thanks for that explanation on systems and your views on evacuation.

[multycpl]

From what you read in the daily papers l'm surprised that anyone checks anything in.....let alone leave it on a plane.
If an Airport is supposed to be sooooooo secure and safe. Then why do you always read about baggage handlers at major western airport's treating passengers belongings as a street flee market. Everything for the taking.
Anything left on the plane WILL disappear.....:ugh:


http://nypost.com/2014/12/03/luggage-handlers-busted-for-stealing-20k-of-passenger-goods/


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/04/minneapolis-airport-baggage-handler-accused-of-stealing-84000-worth-of-belongings-from-passengers/


http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/28/local/la-me-lax-luggage-theft-20140328


I could go on....You know it, they know it.

[glendalegoon]

Lonewolf-50

Why should anyone trust the airlines at all. OH< that's right. NO ONE has been killed in an accident on a US airline in years.

Losing luggage? puhlease.

And I mentioned REASONABLE sized purses, not giant purses.


I realize some people like to argue and that some have lost all perspective. Lose a laptop...big freaking deal.

Lose your life because someone has to get their suitcase with their laptop, NOW THAT's a big deal

[Lonewolf_50]

Glendale, what do you mean "suitcase" as that isn't what I carry on.

Luggage goes in checked baggage for me.
I have found that with the new computerized tagging and such, one of the few things that has improved over the past decade is that they actually know where you luggage is more often, it doesn't get lost as often, and when it doesn't arrive with you that they can predict when it will. (A few dozen domestic US flights are my data points, and three international, in the last ten years).

This isn't about lost luggage, nor did I ever say that it was.
Thanks for your response anyway. I don't think a suitcase will do what you say it will, since the new carry on restrictions in the US don't allow for something big enough to cause that problem.

Anyway, sorry about the diversion, the more interesting bits surrounding this incident concern the human/machine interface and CRM. They will hopefully be useful teaching tools in that type/model going forward.

[CONF iture]

FLEX has arming and engaging phases. When the thrust levers are moved to FLX/MCT, but the FLEX conditions are not met, then FLEX mode will fail to engage.
That means the engines will stay at MCT, which is not enough for takeoff.

I am not sure about that, do you have a reference ?
My idea (but I don't have more reference ...) is that if you don't insert any flex, you will get TOGA anyway in the FLX/MCT detent.

Hence the "retard, retard, retard" warning at 80 kts, which the pilots elected to ignore.
I had never heard of such "RETARD" call by 80kt ... Do you have a reference ?

[ironbutt57]

Nope you won't getTOGA in the flex detent without a flex being enter...you will get the same message these folks got...

[tubby linton]

When anything greater than CL is set ,for example FLX/MCT ,thrust is directly proportional to thrust lever angle. I believe the caption "MAN" above FLX or TOGA is to remind crews of this state.

[Chu Chu]

The latest ATSB Bulletin has a similar event that seems to have been a little better handled . . .

[CONF iture]

Nope you won't getTOGA in the flex detent without a flex being enter...you will get the same message these folks got...

Then what kind of output would you get if you set the THR levers in the FLX/MCT detent but without any flex temp inserted, if not the flex output at the actual ambient temp ... or also called TOGA ?

[tubby linton]

Depending on mod state later fadecs will automatically set Toga if Toga thrust is not set on a Toga take off. The Ntsb will know exactly what N1 or Epr was achieved on this take off from the FDR.

[Calvin Hops]

BRE

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 114
If this had been a Korean or French airline, the bashing would have covered 10 pages by now...




I am now an expat instructors at a national flag carrier in the Orient. What you wrote is very true, not so much because of ppruners not posting but many posts get culled.

Whilst instructing on OE flights nowadays, I find a lot of new expat trainees of the caliber of this said crew ! Alas, my airline is forever recruiting expats...we get loads of riff raffs and adventurers!:*

[thcrozier]

I had that same cocktail 2 weeks ago during a routine colonoscopy. Administered through IV at 9am, procedure took about 30 min or so. After my wife drove me home pretty much slept all day and through the night. Next morning still tired and groggy but able to get around, but ate very little. At 48 hours still tired but ravenously hungry, and at 56 hours felt normal.

If he had a similar procedure and followed all the orders, it's very possible he hadn't eaten much in 3 days, and had been "fully cleansed" as the doctors are fond of saying.

[gerago]

You are so so kind! Thanking you very much on behalf of the captain!:ok:

[MrSnuggles]

Now the medications are interesting.

Fentanyl is an analgesic. Its a synthetic opioid and is very useful in both acute and chronic pain. It should most certainly have been declared to his supervisors that he was prescribed it.

Midazolam is interesting too. Its quite strong, even in mild doses, and in combination with fentanyl would be quite disabling, although 45 hours is well beyond the half life of the drugs, even combined.

I'm presuming the "stress test" relates to a cardiac test? Its a wonder he didnt fall asleep on the treadmill.

Medications
I had that same cocktail 2 weeks ago during a routine colonoscopy. Administered through IV at 9am, procedure took about 30 min or so. After my wife drove me home pretty much slept all day and through the night. Next morning still tired and groggy but able to get around, but ate very little. At 48 hours still tired but ravenously hungry, and at 56 hours felt normal.

If he had a similar procedure and followed all the orders, it's very possible he hadn't eaten much in 3 days, and had been "fully cleansed" as the doctors are fond of saying.

Fentanyl is an opioid most commonly used for severe pain in terminal cancer patients, when morphine alone isn't effective anymore. Our Swedish medical agency also recommends using fentanyl when there is severe chronic pain due to other circumstances, when morphine is not enough.

Fentanyl is about 150 times stronger than morphine. It depresses the CNS and one common side effect is reduced breathing/breathing difficulties. When used to treat chronic pain it is administered through via skin patches although cancer patients may get it as pills for oral consumption. It is of course extremely dangerous to operate any kind of machinery when using this drug. It does not say if the pilot had a patch or a pill - pills usually clears faster than patches that are designed to deposit a certain amount over time.

Fentanyl is also extremely dangerous to combine with sedative drugs since they interact to make the overall effect stronger in both medications.

Midazolam is a very strong sedative, a member of the bensodiazepine family. This is, in Sweden, only used as anaesthetic in hospitals due to its complicated and potent sedation effects and because it is very easy to overdose. Just as Fentanyl it depresses CNS and can result in breathing depression or the heart just stopping beating.

Both these substances are working via enzyme CYP3A4, which explains why the side effects become more severe when combining them.

So, the story about the pilot using these two substances in combination because of some cardiac test is just not plausible. For use of these two in combination you would have either an extremely irresponsible physician that prescribes substances at a whim, a pronounced substance abuse or some sort of invasive surgery followed (or caused) by extreme pain.

I find it confusing that FG claims it was a stress test that was conducted since Fentanyl+Midazolam can have detrimental effects on breathing capability AND heart function, with heart faliure as the ultimate life threatening condition. Either you have very strange procedures on that side of the pond or someone has got things mixed up.

As I said. I am confuddled by this.

I am not very surprised that the Capt reported for duty though. Due to the CNS depression you're not capable of thinking correctly even though you truly believe you are perfectly fine.

I had one such experience when I thought I was perfectly OK after surgery involving some huge amounts of sedatives. It wasn't until later I realised that I was totally whacked and I was glad my surroundings didn't listen to my declarations of fitness and instead strapped me in the back seat of the car. In hindsight I am sure I wouldn't even have gotten out of the parking lot at the hospital without wrecking the car, running over some pedestrians and ending up in a bicycle parking lot...

[thcrozier]

Fentanyl / Midazolam for colonoscopy sedation is pretty common here in the US according to the Dr. who did mine, especially on the West Coast. Propofol, which used to be the drug of choice, is falling into disuse because it requires the presence of an anesthesiologist. Under the FM sedation I was never fully out, I don't think, although in the recovery room (about 90 min) I dozed off. Immediately after the procedure I doubt I could have stood up.

I can't find any reference to the F/M mix being used during a cardiac "stress test". Something about the story doesn't quite add up in my mind, but I'm not a Dr.

[glendalegoon]

did I miss something about meds? I don't see anything about meds anywhere but in the last few posts

is the captain accused of using meds?

please straighten us out!

[tarkay01]

See post 80 in this thread. From FAA report.

Quote:
* but did not enter take-off V-speeds or a “flex temperature” into the MCDU

* When the captain advanced the throttles for takeoff, a warning chime sounded and a screen displayed “ENG THR LEVERS NOT SET; SET TOGA”; The captain responded that “the power is set”, adding that he had advanced the throttles to the flex position.

* The FAA’s report also notes that the captain reported for duty that day 45h after taking midazolam, a sedating drug, and fentanyl, a narcotic; He took the medications for a stress test performed on 11 March, but did not notify US Airways


Astounding.

[MrSnuggles]

glendalegoon

A few pages ago someone posted a link to FlightGlobal:

Pilots played role in US Airways 1702 crash: FAA - 12/12/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pilots-played-role-in-us-airways-1702-crash-faa-407032/)

Snippet1 (about the accident):The documents say that, prior to take-off, captain John Powell noticed the aircraft’s primary flight display wrongly indicated 27R as the departure runway.Co-pilot Lynda Fleming then correctly inputted 27L into the multifunction control display unit, but did not enter take-off V-speeds or a “flex temperature”, which allows the aircraft to take-off at lower-than-maximum thrust. The computer needed those values to calculate takeoff power, and required their re-entry after a runway change.
“The crew failed to accomplish this step and so the aircraft had no data available to compute and perform a flex take-off or display speeds,” say the FAA documents.
As a result, when the captain advanced the throttles for takeoff, a warning chime sounded and a screen displayed “ENG THR LEVERS NOT SET; SET TOGA”, an instruction to set the throttles to take-off/go-around” power.
The copilot, who had 4,784h in A320s, read the first part of this message aloud, but not the instruction to increase power, the report says. The captain, who had 4,457h of A320 time, responded that “the power is set”, adding that he had advanced the throttles to the flex position.
Meanwhile, the aircraft accelerated along runway 27L into a 19kt headwind.
When it reached 80kt, an audible warning sounded “retard, retard, retard”, instructing the pilots to idle the throttles, the FAA report says. The first officer told the captain she had never heard that warning during take-off. “We’ll get that straight when we get airborne,” the captain responded.
The documents give varying indications of how high the aircraft climbed; one inspector says 20ft, another 70ft. Regardless, shortly after take-off the captain aborted.


Snippet2 (regarding medication):
The FAA’s report also notes that the captain reported for duty that day 45h after taking two prescription medications: midazolam, a sedating drug, and fentanyl, a narcotic used as part of medical procedures.
He took the medications for a stress test performed on 11 March, but did not notify US Airways, says the FAA. It notes that pilots should not fly, after taking the last dose of such medications, for a period equal to five times the medications’ half-life. That period was 60 hours for the captain, the FAA says.

[glendalegoon]

MrSnuggles, thank you very much for explaining that to me. WHEN someone posts a link to another article, at least put the important points in the thread as some of us don't go to links we have never heard of like: FLIGHT GLOBAL.

AviationWeek, I've heard of but these others...hmm.

AS TO THE MEDS. Anyone remember the L1011 crash in windshear/microburst many years ago. The captain was said to have been taking some sort of medicine that might impair judgement.

ALL OF US as pilots must police ourselves in terms of use of meds, herbs, nutritional supplements and the like.

And when in doubt, sit it out. EVEN if it changes your vacation plans ets.


Although I will say that when a bad tire becomes airborne the shaking can get worse, not better!

And I will say, without auto throttles, you just push the throttles forward and off you go. All the other monkey motion is just to save money somewhere.

oh well and thanks again Mrsnuggles.

[MrSnuggles]

Oh, don't mention it glendalegoon. Happy to help!

I was under the impression that Flight Global was fairly known in the airline industry, considering Mr Learmount being a writer in the paper and on the blog-kinda-thingamajog they have got going on. Whatever the personal opinion about Mr. L, he is often featured in reports from aircraft accident sites. At least in Sweden.

Anyway, back on topic:

And when in doubt, sit it out. EVEN if it changes your vacation plans ets.
This is very easy to say, but as I myself experienced, when you deal with drugs that depress CNS your line of thinking becomes distorted. This does not happen to everyone, and I can not speak for the Capt of this flight, but the general trend is that your ability to assess a situation is severely impaired to the point that you truly and honestly believe you are fit for any fight.

Someone sensitive to this drug combination might thus have felt perfectly fine and fit to fly/drive a car/operate heavy equipment/perform advanced surgery/whathaveyou while in reality the judgement is out the window and rational reasoning is nowhere to be found. To just "sit around when in doubt" does not apply during these circumstances. This combination of drugs makes some people unable to doubt. For them, me included, there is no doubt about skills needed to perform a certain task. And when you have no doubts, you really need a very assertive environment to stop you from making very very bad decisions.

[glendalegoon]

mrsnuggles


Anytime I go to the doctor, other than my aviation medical examiner, I mention to the doctor that I am a pilot and ask if the med/procedure will affect my judgement. I will often pursue it further mentioning that even though our plane is pressurized, 8000' is still pretty high.


MANY airline Ops manuals give specific examples and so does the A.I.M. in terms of meds and other things like scuba diving and blood donating.

[thcrozier]

It's been my experience that many doctors don't have a clue that a prescription they write might put a pilot on the "deny" list for a medical certificate. I don't think it's their fault for not knowing, but for some reason the information isn't communicated to them. For pilots that means you have to watch out for yourself.

[thcrozier]

I really doubt the procedure was a "stress test". Rather, it was some sort of minor surgical procedure like a colonoscopy. For you younger guys, allow me to describe the delights of this experience, it is routine in the US upon reaching age 50.

The day before, you are instructed to eat no food and drink only clear liquids. Then at about 6pm the evening before you drink over a liter of a foul tasting solution they give you. About 90 minutes after that you have an explosive diarrhea attack lasting 2 to 3 hours.

The next morning at about 4, you drink another liter of the ambrosia and repeat the process, until whatever you pass is clear. When you arrive at the Hospital you are already dehydrated and worn out. They place an IV, check your vitals, and if all is good they roll you in for the viewing.

Within seconds of being dosed with the sedatives you are pretty much out of it, although in my case still barely conscious. It only takes about 30 min after that unless they find polyps, in which case they are removed for biopsy. In my case there were none.

After that they monitor you in the recovery room for about 90 min until your wife shows up to take you home.

The next day you feel ok, they tell you to eat but in my case I just wasn't hungry. The following day I woke up feeling like I had run a marathon and had a huge appetite. 8 hours later (56 hours after the procedure and 80 hours after the fasting began) I felt pretty normal.

Toward the end, I don't think I was experiencing the effects of the drugs; I was just dehydrated and starved. For me, I would not attempt any high performance activity before five days after the fasting starts.

[thcrozier]

@gerago:

I don't fly anymore but I've found that doctors rarely ask what kinds of activities you might be involved in before admistering drugs or performing minor surgeries. In my recent procedure, I would have no idea what the guy used to sedate me unless I had specifically asked. I also never really considered, nor was I informed, that I would be going for almost 3 days undernourished and dehydrated.

Additionally, almost any invasive medical procedure, even a dental filling, can be physically taxing to the point that the patient might not be aware of its effects on performance. Perhaps the focus shouldn't be so much on the drugs themselves, but on the trauma and stress of climbing Mt. Everest.

[MrSnuggles]

I have searched the NTSB home page for an accident/incident docket about this event but came up with zilch. Googling led me to two *.mp3 files on the FAA website.

Can someone please help me find the report(s?) Flight Global refers to in the article or are they still confidential due to investigation blabla?

[thcrozier]

Me too Mr. Snuggles:

The article begins with "But newly-obtained documents trace the accident to failures made by the pilots during taxiing, and reveal the tyre blew after the captain aborted the take-off just after the aircraft became airborne.

"The FAA and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) declined to comment on the new information, citing the NTSB's ongoing investigations. American Airlines and the Allied Pilots Association, which represents US Airways pilots, declined to comment due to participation in the investigation."

Obtained from whom? We're they leaked to someone? I'm beginning to doubt the accuracy of the story.

[Airbubba]

Obtained from whom? We're they leaked to someone? I'm beginning to doubt the accuracy of the story.

From the horse's mouth, can't blame this one on the summer intern:

NTSB Press Release

National Transportation Safety Board Office of Public Affairs

FAA Mistakenly Released a Draft Internal Report During NTSB Investigation

1/6/2015

The NTSB has found that the Federal Aviation Administration mistakenly released investigative information, an error that violated NTSB regulations and party process in our investigation of a March 13, 2014, airplane accident in Philadelphia.

The accident, involving a US Airways passenger jet, is currently under investigation by the NTSB. Recently, the FAA, which is a party to the investigation, mistakenly released preliminary information about the accident under the Freedom of Information Act.

The NTSB depends upon full participation and technical assistance by the parties in our accident investigations – in this case, the FAA, the airline, and the pilots’ association -- in order to ensure that our investigations are objective, rigorous, and complete. Allowing any party to release investigative information without approval may enable that party to influence the public perception of the investigation, and undercut the fairness of the process.

Accordingly, we require that any release of information related to an ongoing accident investigation be coordinated and approved by the NTSB prior to its release. When the investigation is complete, these restrictions no longer apply. Because this investigation is not yet complete, the FAA was required, but failed, to notify and seek the necessary approval from the NTSB prior to releasing their draft report.

The NTSB has shared its strong concern about this matter with the FAA. As a result, the FAA is reviewing this case to see how the disclosure of information occurred and will review its policies and procedures to ensure that information from accident investigations is properly protected.

FAA Mistakenly Released a Draft Internal Report During NTSB Investigation (http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20150106.aspx)

[alph2z]

Pilot Error Blamed for 2014 Botched US Airways Takeoff, NTSB Says - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/pilot-error-blamed-2014-botched-us-airways-takeoff/story?id=37203613)

Full Narrative NTSB
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20140314X21725&ntsbno=DCA14MA081&akey=1

Full Docket
Accident ID DCA14MA081 Mode Aviation occurred on March 13, 2014 in Philadelphia, PA United States Last Modified on February 26, 2016 13:02 Public Released on November 19, 2015 08:11 Total 32 document items (http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hitlist.cfm?docketID=57967&CFID=336208&CFTOKEN=4a1a900237dfc3ca-3A2E83C1-95CD-1617-C86CD93B45034454)

Summary:
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140314X21725

... Collectively, the events before rotation (the incorrect runway programmed in the FMC, the "thrust not set" ECAM message during the takeoff roll, the RETARD alert, and the lack of required V-speeds callouts) should have prompted the flight crew not to proceed with the takeoff roll. The flight crewmembers exhibited a self-induced pressure to continue the takeoff rather than taking the time to ensure the airplane was properly configured. Further, the captain initiated a rejected takeoff after the airplane's speed was beyond V1 and the nosewheel was off the runway when he should have been committed to the takeoff. The flight crewmembers' performance was indicative of poor crew resource management in that they failed to assess their situation when an error was discovered, to request a delayed takeoff, to communicate effectively, and to follow SOPs. Specifically, the captain's decision to abort the takeoff after rotation, the flight crew's failure to verify the correct departure runway before gate departure, and the captain's failure to move the thrust levers to the TO/GA detent in response to the ECAM message were all contrary to the operator's SOPs.

Member Weener filed a statement, concurring in part and dissenting in part, that can be found in the public docket for this accident. Chairman Hart, Vice Chairman Dinh-Zarr, and Member Sumwalt joined the statement.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

the captain's decision to reject the takeoff after the airplane had rotated. Contributing to the accident was the flight crew's failure to follow standard operating procedures by not verifying that the airplane's flight management computer was properly configured for takeoff and the captain's failure to perform the correct action in response to the electronic centralized aircraft monitoring alert.

[Airbubba]

Member Weener filed a statement, concurring in part and dissenting in part, that can be found in the public docket for this accident. Chairman Hart, Vice Chairman Dinh-Zarr, and Member Sumwalt joined the statement.


Weener's dissent seems to be that the 'RETARD, RETARD' message was so distracting that it affected subsequent decision making including the decision to reject the takeoff after lift off. He says the 'insistent nature of the alert affected the crew and drew their attention during this critical decision-making period':

Dissenting Opinion (http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/document.cfm?docID=436898&docketID=57967&mkey=88921)

I'd kinda hope that if the plane was loudly yelling 'RETARD' on the takeoff roll it would draw the attention of the crew. :eek:

[alph2z]

More on this dissent:

Party Submission - Allied Pilots Association

Document 1 Human Performance Group Chairman's Factual Report Filing Date November 19, 2015 11 page(s) of Image (PDF or TIFF) 0 Photos (http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/document.cfm?docID=436895&docketID=57967&mkey=88921)

[airman1900]

According to Airbus, from below, "... the aircraft is declared in landing phase whereas it is taking off."

By the way, the below link is to Document 28 although "it" (ie some computer software) has apparently declared it as Document 1 :)

From Document 28, page 11, in the NTSB docket:

Party Submission - Airbus

Document 1 Human Performance Group Chairman's Factual Report Filing Date November 19, 2015 11 page(s) of Image (PDF or TIFF) 0 Photos (http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/document.cfm?docID=436896&docketID=57967&mkey=88921)

6.2 If thrust levers are not set for take-off

The condition 1st ENG TO PWR is not set when thrust levers are not advanced sufficiently to reach the take-off position corresponding to FMS thrust configuration, i.e.:
•Thrust levers below FLX detent if a FLX TO TEMP has been entered,
•Thrust levers below TOGA detent if no FLX TO TEMP has been entered.

As the aircraft accelerates during the take-off run, FWC does not compute flight phase 3 but stays in phase 2 in absence of corresponding thrust condition (1st ENG TO PWR not met). When aircraft reaches 80kt, FWC computes flight phase 8 on the basis of the 3 conditions:
•GROUND
•NO ENG TO PWR
•SPEED > 80kt.

Accordingly, the aircraft is declared in landing phase whereas it is taking off.

6.3 Audio-alert RETARD during take-off

Audio-alert “RETARD” has been designed in order to remind the pilot to retard the thrust levers for landing.

[Airbubba]

More on this dissent:

Party Submission - Allied Pilots Association



Thanks for sharing this. Since the 'RETARD' annunciation was not at the time listed as a reason for a 'recommended' high speed RTO, I can now see where it indeed may have contributed to the subsequent confusion.

[mach2.6]

Seems that the various dissenters feel that the unexpected "retard" call by Hal played a large part in the mishap. Although I never flew a bus, I likewise would not have expected this call at this point (takeoff roll) in the operation of the flight, simply because it is illogical.

One could speculate as to what other unexpected calls Hal could have in his repertoire, if he was feeling unwell the day after his colonoscopy.
CVR:
FO: "checklist complete"
Capt (to ATC): "rolling"
Hal: "oui, allons"
Capt: "Hal, I've asked you not to speak French, as I don't understand it."
Hal: "retard..., retard....., retard...."
Capt: "abort"
FO: "abort"
Hal: "sacre bleu!"
A320: "scrunch, snap, grind, scrape"
Capt: "&%@$#!"
FO: "&%@$#!"
Hal: "retard.....retard....retard"
(end of tape)
:E

[JammedStab]

Is there not an FMC message such as "Takeoff Speeds Deleted" or something similar when there is a runway change.. This is what you see on Boeing(or at least some of them).

[Check Airman]

Is there not an FMC message such as "Takeoff Speeds Deleted" or something similar when there is a runway change.. This is what you see on Boeing(or at least some of them).

Fifi does indeed warn you. You get an amber scratchpad message saying something along the lines of "CHECK PERF DATA".

In fairness, for a last minute change of data like this, I suppose the message was inadvertently cancelled. Our company SOP is for the PF to be on the PERF page (with the V speeds displayed) for takeoff. When a runway change occurs, the old V speeds are shown in small font beside the now empty boxes which require entry.

I can't imagine why the CA opted to bring the levers back to climb instead of pushing them forward to the TOGA detent when he was first made aware of the problem though.:confused:

[Machinbird]

I can't imagine why the CA opted to bring the levers back to climb instead of pushing them forward to the TOGA detent when he was first made aware of the problem though.The takeoff roll and right after lift off is a really bad time to be thrown into an unfamiliar emergency situation. Here are some horrible examples:
Kenya Airways Flight 431
ASN Aircraft accident Airbus A310-304 5Y-BEN Abidjan-Felix Houphouet Boigny Airport (ABJ) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000130-1)

TWA Flight 843
ASN Aircraft accident Lockheed L-1011 TriStar 1 N11002 New York-John F. Kennedy International Airport, NY (JFK) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19920730-0)

AA Flight 191
ASN Aircraft accident McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 N110AA Chicago-O'Hare International Airport, IL (ORD) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19790525-2)

Logically the reason the Captain elected to pull the throttles back is because the aircraft had been hinting at that.
Due to attention tunneling/plan continuation bias, it is very difficult to change a plan once it has been set in motion in your mind.

[Check Airman]

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not throwing stones. Assuming he processed the message that the thrust was not set, why cycle the levers back to FLEX, instead of just selecting TOGA?

Out of curiosity, what power output would you get on the ground with no FLEX temp, and the levers in the FLEX detent?

[EGPFlyer]

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not throwing stones. Assuming he processed the message that the thrust was not set, why cycle the levers back to FLEX, instead of just selecting TOGA?

Out of curiosity, what power output would you get on the ground with no FLEX temp, and the levers in the FLEX detent?

You get Max Continuous Thrust which may be up to around 2% less N1 at ISA conditions, depending on the engine variant

[RatherBeFlying]

This retired software developer is not impressed. Instead of RETARD, the voice prompt needs to be GO TO TOGA. This may require some sorting out of the flight mode determination logic.

Demanding a useful response from the pilot would reduce confusion and reduce the odds of making things worse where little time is available for analysis.

There's similarities with AF447 where the later stall warnings only came on when nose down was commanded. Here we have a landing annunciation come on during takeoff:}

Cockpits are the worst possible places for diagnosing software errors - or should we say poor specifications.

[JammedStab]

Sorry, but initiating an RTO when the nosewheel is in the air already is really, really dangerous. If there has been no indication giving that the aircraft cannot fly, it is really stupid.

You could easily end up like this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX_yB3mKdUg

[Capn Bloggs]

It looks like his mistake was he tried to fly when it wouldn't (after some sort of major smoking failure), finally he stopped. :confused:

US Captain said it was definitely unflyable. A poor assessment, perhaps, but the result didn't turn out too bad for the "not-flyable" scenario.

[BFSGrad]

Previous posts (80, 96, 126-136) discussed Captain’s use of midazolam and fentanyl a few days prior to the accident. Speculation was that use was associated with a stress test.

Page 4 of the Human Performance report clarifies that the Captain underwent stress echocardiography on March 7, 2014 with new abnormalities noted. On March 11, 2014, the Captain underwent cardiac catheterization, which demonstrated significant coronary artery disease. This latter procedure was the source of the midazolam and fentanyl.

Some other background on the Captain’s medical status:

Captain underwent coronary bypass surgery and cardiac catheterization in 2011.
Medically certified under special issuance in 2012 and continuously thereafter.

[RatherBeFlying]

First of all the drugs were administered by medical staff during the procedure for sedation. It's a stretch to say he "used" the drugs.

The day after it is recommended to plant oneself in an armchair and do nothing.

As for driving, one clinic advises not to drive for 24 hours; another for two days.

It should also be kept in mind that this was not likely his first cardiac catheterization and that two days later he felt ready to fly.

The human factors report says nothing about how much time should be required before flying again.

Recovery time for pilots after a procedure with sedation would be a worthwhile avenue of inquiry. Would another day or 2,3,4... off have made a difference? There's no data offered here.

[Check Airman]

This retired software developer is not impressed. Instead of RETARD, the voice prompt needs to be GO TO TOGA. This may require some sorting out of the flight mode determination logic.

Demanding a useful response from the pilot would reduce confusion and reduce the odds of making things worse where little time is available for analysis.

There's similarities with AF447 where the later stall warnings only came on when nose down was commanded. Here we have a landing annunciation come on during takeoff:}

Cockpits are the worst possible places for diagnosing software errors - or should we say poor specifications.

You make a good point about diagnosing errors, but remember, Airbus can't conceive of every possible failure. I don't think it's a matter of the plane being programmed to call RETARD in that situation (as good as that advice may be), as Airbus was simply able to explain WHY the call was generated at that time.

It's a bit over-engineered, and when things don't go exactly as planned, you can get some unusual results, as was the case with the RETARD callout on takeoff.

[Ozlander1]

I'll bet the flight crew took their chart cases when they went down the slide....