PDA

View Full Version : Runway excursion by DL MD-80


Pages : [1] 2

No longer ATC
5th Mar 2015, 15:32
Not much more than that really, they are saying a DL MD80 "skidded" off rwy on landing-airfield currently closed.

Smudger
5th Mar 2015, 15:36
La Guardia looks like all personnel ok thankfully

Union Jack
5th Mar 2015, 15:36
At La Guardia apparently, for those who are wondering Breaking: Delta plane slides off runway at LaGuardia [photos] | Twitchy (http://twitchy.com/2015/03/05/breaking-delta-plane-slides-off-runway-at-laguardia-photos/)

brian.crissie
5th Mar 2015, 15:38
LGA - OA (reported as DL) aircraft slid off runway....Field is closed....some flights to return to point of origin and others diverting.

deci
5th Mar 2015, 15:46
https://instagram.com/p/z2kcdEiNtE/

Pudu
5th Mar 2015, 15:52
Of course we do not know the exact facts yet, but it would seem safe to say that the weather conditions at least contributed to the final result of runway excursion.
When will the JFK airports start concerning themselves more with safety rather than getting sued.
They never give you any information about the runway conditions or breaking actions, except for pilot reports and that is only useful if someone had landed recently and was able to give an accurate report.

PlatinumFlyer
5th Mar 2015, 15:58
Television now shows the nose of the plane elevated on a ridge of snow(?) that has it nose up and tail down, and nose is up against a fence. Passsengers evacuating using overwing exits and slide.

fast cruiser
5th Mar 2015, 16:07
spoilers/speed brake???? missing in the video unless the flight crew had the capacity to retract after it came to a rest before Evac..

just a thought..

WillFlyForCheese
5th Mar 2015, 16:08
Platinum Flyer: that's not a ridge of snow - it looks like the levee/berm that separate the runway from Flushing Bay - at the end of RW 13. Or - it may have slid off the North side of the runway and ended up against the berm that separates the runway from the East River. Quite a ride for sure.

Delta now reporting it's an MD-88

That's the same spot (I believe) that US Air 405 went into Flushing Bay back in 1992.

WillFlyForCheese
5th Mar 2015, 16:21
Looks like it slid off the left side of the runway (north) and hit the East River berm.

Had it slid off the right (south) - it would have headed towards the terminal and parked aircraft. :eek:

MoJo WoJo
5th Mar 2015, 16:35
Is there a link to archived arrival and or departure ATIS?

MotCap
5th Mar 2015, 16:35
The aircraft is off the side of the runway after apparently shooting the ILS to runway 13.

Weather:
KLGA 051651Z 32016KT 1/4SM R04/2800V4000FT SN FZFG FEW006 OVC012 M03/M05 A3015 RMK AO2 SLP210 P0005 T10331050

John in YVR
5th Mar 2015, 16:39
What happened to the nose gear? Or at least the tracks that a nose gear would have left in the snow?

EternalNY1
5th Mar 2015, 16:41
ILS to 13 with winds 320 at 16??

x_navman
5th Mar 2015, 16:41
some news reports are suggesting that the berm is the one at the SE end of the runway.., not the one at the side.

they are also suggesting that this indicates a possible downwind landing

winds at LGA have been NW to NE over the last few hours

sidman
5th Mar 2015, 16:54
At the time of the landing they were calling the winds 020 at 10..

rgbrock1
5th Mar 2015, 16:57
Considering the weather we've had in the area the past couple of days, this comes as no surprise. (Snow, ice, sleet) All other area airports (JFK, Westchester and Newark/Liberty are experiencing delays of up to 3 hours because of the weather.)

21five
5th Mar 2015, 17:00
Registration visible in instagram video is N909DL.

It was an MD-88 registered in 1987, operating flight DL1086 from ATL.

MoJo WoJo
5th Mar 2015, 17:14
DL1086 Departed from KATL

WillFlyForCheese
5th Mar 2015, 17:18
some news reports are suggesting that the berm is the one at the SE end of the runway.., not the one at the side.

that's definitely the berm on the NE side of the runway. Looks like the aircraft slid down the berm a bit - taking out the fence as it slid down the berm.

enola-gay
5th Mar 2015, 17:21
Here in La Guardia, as in Kathmandu with the Turkish Air incident, all pax evacuate with hand baggage.

I know this is an unpopular topic with aircrew who post here, but that is what people do, and telling them in the safety brief that they cannot do that is a total waste of time. Do the cabin crew police that at emergency exits? "No" must be the answer.

A complete industry risk review of evacuation with hand baggage is overdue, because prohibition simply does not work and never has. If it is not preventable because of human factors, then a mitigation strategy is required, such as slide and door design. Low cost carriers are forcing pax into hand baggage only, and that means such a review is overdue.

PastTense
5th Mar 2015, 17:23
Fuel was leaking from the MD-88 jet and emergency responders were spraying foam to prevent a potential fire.
Jet skids off runway at LaGuardia Airport | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2015/03/05/plane-skids-off-runway-at-nyc-airport/)

MikeNYC
5th Mar 2015, 17:38
VERY close call:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_WiWLfWAAA_UHi.jpg:large

An aircraft requested a wind check at 16:00:25Z, where the wind was 020 @ 10kts.

Previous aircraft (A 319) reported braking action as "good"

Five Green
5th Mar 2015, 17:51
Port Authority News Conference now reporting aircraft landed on RWY 13 length 7000' and exited the runway aprox. 4500' from the threshold. Aircraft did not exit end of runway or go through EMAS (Excursion Mitigating and arresting system)

Braking action reported as good by preceding aircraft. Did not mention aircraft type that reported braking action.

LGA still closed planning to open a runway by 2 pm local.

airman1900
5th Mar 2015, 17:54
They were probably using Rwy 13 because of low visibility.

Winds aloft from National Weather Service Radiosonde at 1200Z at Upton Long Island(about 40 nautical miles east of LGA) were reported from 020 degrees at 10 knots true at the surface, from 350 degrees at 16 knots true at 414 feet msl and from 350 degrees at 22 knots true at 1000 feet msl .


According to FlightAware Delta 1086, a MD-88, from ATL arrived LGA at 1556Z


METARs


KLGA 051751Z COR 30015G21KT 1/4SM R04/2200V2800FT +SN FZFG VV007 M05/M07 A3017 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 SLP217 931040 4/007 933015 SNINCR 1/7 P0004 60028 T10501067 10006 21050 53010 $
KLGA 051716Z 33013KT 1/4SM R04/2000V2400FT +SN FZFG VV009 M04/M06 A3016 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 P0002 $
KLGA 051651Z 32016KT 1/4SM R04/2800V4000FT SN FZFG FEW006 OVC012 M03/M05 A3015 RMK AO2 SLP210 P0005 T10331050 $
KLGA 051640Z 32014KT 1/4SM R04/2400V4000FT SN FZFG SCT007 OVC012 M03/M05 A3015 RMK AO2 SFC VIS 1/2 PRESRR P0005
KLGA 051631Z 36009KT 1/4SM R04/3500VP6000FT SN FZFG VV012 M03/M05 A3012 RMK AO2 SFC VIS 1/2 P0004
KLGA 051622Z 01008KT 1/4SM R04/3000VP6000FT SN FZFG VV011 M03/M05 A3012 RMK AO2 SFC VIS 1/2 P0003
KLGA 051551Z 01008KT 1/4SM R04/2800V3500FT SN FZFG VV009 M03/M05 A3012 RMK AO2 SLP199 P0006 T10331050
KLGA 051524Z 04007KT 1/4SM R04/2600V2800FT SN FZFG VV009 M03/M04 A3013 RMK AO2 P0004
KLGA 051451Z 03010KT 1/4SM R04/3000V4500FT SN FZFG VV012 M03/M04 A3014 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 3/4 SLP207 P0003 60013 T10281044 53040
KLGA 051417Z 03012KT 1/4SM R04/2800V4000FT SN FZFG SCT006 OVC012 M02/M03 A3011 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 3/4 P0002
KLGA 051351Z 01014G18KT 1/2SM R04/5000VP6000FT SN FZFG FEW006 OVC014 M02/M03 A3011 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 3/4 SLP195 SNINCR 1/5 P0005 T10171033
KLGA 051338Z 01013KT 1/2SM R04/3000V5000FT SN FZFG SCT006 OVC010 M02/M03 A3010 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 3/4 P0005
KLGA 051333Z 36011KT 1/4SM R04/3000V5000FT SN FZFG VV007 M01/M03 A3010 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 3/4 PRESRR P0004
KLGA 051251Z COR 34006KT 1/4SM R04/3000V4000FT SN FG OVC009 00/M01 A3006 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 3/4 SLP178 SNINCR 1/4 P0005 T00001011
KLGA 051218Z 33007KT 1/4SM R04/3500V4500FT SN FG BKN009 OVC014 00/M01 A3004 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 3/4 P0002
KLGA 051208Z 33007KT 1/2SM R04/4000V5500FT SN FG FEW006 OVC011 00/M02 A3004 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 3/4 P0001
KLGA 051157Z 33007KT 1/2SM R04/5000VP6000FT SN FG BKN010 OVC015 01/M02 A3003 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 3/4 P0000
KLGA 051151Z 33007KT 1SM R04/5500VP6000FT -SN BR BKN011 OVC016 01/M02 A3003 RMK AO2 SLP167 931004 4/003 P0002 60016 70046 T00061017 10044 20006 53014

Sampan Angkasa
5th Mar 2015, 17:56
Wonder if its local crew or expats?:}

MoJo WoJo
5th Mar 2015, 17:56
That is surface wind.
Was there any wind shearing reported on short final by previous ACs.
Profile of DL1086 shows incr of Descent Rate on short final.
Data recorder will have all the answers.

MikeNYC
5th Mar 2015, 17:59
Port Authority News Conference now reporting aircraft landed on RWY 13 length 7000' and exited the runway aprox. 4500' from the threshold. Aircraft did not exit end of runway or go through EMAS (Excursion Mitigating and arresting system)

EMAS is Engineered Materials Arresting System, not Excursion Mitigating. Generally, a runway excursion is away from the centerline, where an overrun is in line with runway heading, but past the threshold (which EMAS is designed to arrest)

According to FlightAware Delta 1086, a MD-88, from ATL arrived LGA at 1556Z

The aircraft arrived closer to 1603Z.

Winds aloft from National Weather Service Radiosonde at 1200Z at Upton Long Island(about 40 nautical miles east of LGA) were reported from 350 degrees at 16 knots true at 414 feet msl and from 350 degrees at 22 knots true at 1000 feet msl .

So, not a massive wind shift in speed or direction, as the preceding aircraft reported 020@10, and the closest METAR indicates 010@8.

neilki
5th Mar 2015, 18:59
Nasty WX here, but what strikes me about an outwardly survivable mishap is the number of exits rendered unusable. Reports locally that the left side exits unusable due fuel leak (did they hit an antenna or hut?) and R1 hanging over Jamaica bay (shades of an undelivered A340 at Tolouse..) leaving only 2 over wing exits and pax carring baggage out. Any fire or smoke and things would have gone downhill rapidment. A closer call than perhaps a casual observer might consider

Sawbones
5th Mar 2015, 19:10
Approximately 15 minutes earlier United 462 called braking "medium, worse at the end .. later said poor". Three others that followed called it good braking (a Regional Jet and a 319) and this was communicated to 1086. Touchdown RVRs at the time were good (6000'). Wind 030 at 9 for runway 13.

skyhighfallguy
5th Mar 2015, 19:32
if you look , the tail cone is gone, I think they may have used the tail slide to evacuate, plus the over wing exits

Pablo26
5th Mar 2015, 19:35
Per Neilki - "and pax carrying baggage out. Any fire or smoke and things would have gone downhill rapidment." Unfortunately no amount of cajoling the pax is going to change this. I hate to say it, but nothing will until it causes fatalities and compels the airlines to come up with a solution (locking system on the overheads that can be engaged by crew on takeoff and landing, perhaps?)

Aluminium shuffler
5th Mar 2015, 19:41
So, one crew report poor braking action, and with further snowfall, a few idiots report goo BA and ATC run with that? This reeks of commercial pressure and contempt for safety. As for a 10kt downwind landing on a contaminated runway in continuing snow? Really? This seems to be a major US cultural issue.

MikeNYC
5th Mar 2015, 20:14
There was no 10kt downwind landing. It was 4kts.

Commercial pressure and contempt for safety? With several others (more recent) reporting good braking action, why should ATC report anything else?

Enlighten me on this "major US cultural issue" this is "reeking" of.

OldLurker
5th Mar 2015, 20:20
As reported by Aviation Herald, sounds somewhat weird – tower apparently unable to see what had happened and having to be persuaded by fire service that there had been a crash ...

Accident: Delta MD88 at New York on Mar 5th 2015, runway excursion on landing (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=482b659f)

skyhighfallguy
5th Mar 2015, 20:29
it is really all about assessing the criticality of the approach, being on speed, on centerline and directional control INCLUDING post landing aerodynamic controls (eg pushing forward to keep nosewheel in contact with runway, being sure the spoilers deployed, compensating for crosswind and symmetric application of reverse thrust).

wondering when the last time rubber removed from runway?

SeenItAll
5th Mar 2015, 21:07
For those of you looking for a link to the ATC transmissions, see: Delta plane slides off runway at snowy New York airport (http://news.yahoo.com/plane-slides-off-runway-yorks-laguardia-airport-163208957.html)

WillFlyForCheese
5th Mar 2015, 21:18
Pablo26 Per Neilki - "and pax carrying baggage out. Any fire or smoke and things would have gone downhill rapidment." Unfortunately no amount of cajoling the pax is going to change this. I hate to say it, but nothing will until it causes fatalities and compels the airlines to come up with a solution (locking system on the overheads that can be engaged by crew on takeoff and landing, perhaps?) Listening to CNN earlier today - they conducted a telephone interview with a passenger who attempted to use the restroom as the plane was being evacuated. He told the newscaster that the pilot told him the bathroom was locked and that he had to exit the plane. I'll try to find the interview.

:ugh:

Here it is: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/delta-passenger-recalls-crash-landing/vp-BBih7CI

Starts at around the 5:00 mark on the video. Forget grabbing your carryon bags - this guy was going to take a bathroom break prior to evac.

Feathered
5th Mar 2015, 21:20
When will the JFK airports start concerning themselves more with safety rather than getting sued.
They never give you any information about the runway conditions or breaking actions, except for pilot reports and that is only useful if someone had landed recently and was able to give an accurate report.

Pudo, this incident took place at LGA, not JFK. And there was a braking action PIREP (good) provided a few minutes before by an Airbus. Regardless, there was plenty of snow and ice on the field due to the lousy weather today. As long as aircraft continue to attempt operating in these conditions, I fear situations like this will occur.

Oasis
5th Mar 2015, 21:49
I wonder how bad the previously landed Airbus crew feels about reporting good braking action.
I was just listening to ewr tower and all U.S. carriers said good braking action. British airways comes in and lands.
They then told the tower that there was considerable contamination towards the end of the runway.
So a lot more info than from the local carriers who just keep their mouth.. Why?

RatherBeFlying
5th Mar 2015, 21:57
You would need actuation for horizontal and vertical accelerations that would release springs to drive locking pins.

The pins would have to act quickly because bins tend to come open by themselves in harder landings.

You also need a mechanism to unlock the bins.

I can hear the beancounters wailing in horror at the prospect:}

Another way would be to automatically lock the bins when the seat belt sign is on -- even more distressing for the beancounters;)

ILUVHOKE
5th Mar 2015, 22:13
I wonder how bad the previously landed Airbus crew feels about reporting good braking action.
I was just listening to ewr tower and all U.S. carriers said good braking action. British airways comes in and lands.
They then told the tower that there was considerable contamination towards the end of the runway.
So a lot more info than from the local carriers who just keep their mouth.. Why?

Maybe Speedbird was the only airline to encounter "considerable contamination towards the end of the runway" because they were the only aircraft to operate near the end of the runway. PIREPS are based on what we as crews experience. I have encountered considerably different conditions than PIREPS would make me expect, only to realize I exited the runway further down then 90% of the previous flights. Throw rubber deposits in the last 1000-1500ft and it may be a lot worse near the end.

costalpilot
5th Mar 2015, 22:56
When I was a pilot pretty much everyone with much experience kinda figured that all things being equal the runway wAs going to be slippier at the other end.

Another round of outrage and angst over passengers acting like idiots in an emergency. Personally I have serious doubts they are ever going to change.

I can imagine the occasional Crew member using the word "reeks" about a cause of an accident b4 much is known. Not impressive. I was sometimes impressed with the regularity with which airline crews managed to operate into less than ideal airports in less than ideal wx with such frequency, considering the forces in play, and these accidents suggest to me that I wasn't impressed enough.

All in all, despite the high incidence of elevated egos, I stand in admiration of the professional pilots that carry on.

Feathered
5th Mar 2015, 23:08
I wonder how bad the previously landed Airbus crew feels about reporting good braking action.
I was just listening to ewr tower and all U.S. carriers said good braking action. British airways comes in and lands.
They then told the tower that there was considerable contamination towards the end of the runway.
So a lot more info than from the local carriers who just keep their mouth.. Why?

I'm not sure why a crew should feel bad about reporting their experience. Airbus crew certainly could have had good braking action where they were braking, while the MD 80 crew encountered slippery conditions while they were rolling out. With that much energy still in the aircraft, it wouldn't take much sliding to start point the aircraft askew, beginning the excursion sequence.

Ian W
5th Mar 2015, 23:15
You would need actuation for horizontal and vertical accelerations that would release springs to drive locking pins.

The pins would have to act quickly because bins tend to come open by themselves in harder landings.

You also need a mechanism to unlock the bins.

I can hear the beancounters wailing in horror at the prospect:}

Another way would be to automatically lock the bins when the seat belt sign is on -- even more distressing for the beancounters;)

Or the warning not to take bags of any kind with you in an emergency evacuation could be part of the routine safety briefing. :=

I have been an SLF to the extent that flight attendants recognize me - but I have not had a safety brief that says not to take any bags with you on evacuation. Perhaps i have been flying the incorrect airlines?

The reason most SLF have cabin baggage is that those bags have valuable or irreplaceable items in them. It will take more than a line in the safety booklet to stop them taking those bags with them.

Dairyground
5th Mar 2015, 23:30
As frequent SLF, I am well aware of the instructions to leave everything behind when leaving an aircraft in an emergency. What is not clear to me is the relative importance of not being encumbered by a bag when going out through the door and down the slide compared with the delays and congestion caused by people extracting luggage from overhead and under seats.

My expectation is that once you are at the door, the fact that you are hugging a suitcase as you jump is of relatively minor importance.

The most obvious way to avoid cabin congestion and delay, whether during regular exit of emergency evacuation, is to limit the size and quantity of hand baggage.

Airlines should set reasonable size rules, and enforce them. And to complement this, they should not charge for reasonable quantities (size, weight, number) of checked bags, and should also ensure that bags get to the carousel as soon as the passenger. They could start by separating terminating and transferring bags at the departure airport, cutting one process and its delays from the delivery process.

jack11111
5th Mar 2015, 23:46
I believe passengers will continue to take their "stuff" with them during evacs even if there are flames outside the windows.


Locking overhead bins with the seatbelt sign on will reduce the problem somewhat. But once pax realize the bins lock they will use the storage at their feet for items they want access to during flight. Also, seatbelt signs are turned off later and sometimes never increasingly.

Capt Claret
5th Mar 2015, 23:47
Or the warning not to take bags of any kind with you in an emergency evacuation could be part of the routine safety briefing

It's in every safety briefing I've heard in Aus. Yet a colleague was criticised once for allowing pax to evacuate (smoke in cabin on taxi out) with their bags.

Whilst I agree the pax are stupid for not leaving luggage behind. In a real evacuation, what is more likely to slow the process and possibly result in deaths;
stopping the evacuation whilst the errant pax puts their hand luggage some where that doesn't further impede the other evacuating passengers, or,
letting them out the door?

Pozidrive
6th Mar 2015, 00:04
Quite right jack1111,


If there are flames outside the window, that's your last chance to retain your valuables. Wouldn't you do the same?

cooperplace
6th Mar 2015, 02:33
without knowing the facts here, I think a useful addition to the safety videos would be a simulation showing two scenarios:
1. Everyone delays to grab some hand luggage, and half of the passengers perish in fire;
2. everyone goes straight out without delay, and the fire consumes the cabin just as the last person exits.

This would make the point.

It would be interesting to set up both situations in a mock-up plane with volunteers and measure the difference in time taken to evacuate.

cheeky cough
6th Mar 2015, 03:26
Imho, with poor visibility and a cross wind, it could be very easy to line up on left edge of runway , and with the MD80's high nose up attitude and low wing tips, hit a wingtip and veer to the left sharply. Things happen quickly, and the debate on old aircraft, passengers deplaning with luggage, etc., makes me laugh. This airport was designed a long time ago and for DC3s and flying boats. Shut this place down already. CC, Similar event in Canada a few years ago.


http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tsb.gc.ca%2Feng%2Frapports-reports%2Faviation%2F2005%2Fa05w0010%2Fa05w0010.pdf&ei=7i35VIP7EI-7yQT_5IKICA&usg=AFQjCNGXVyMPjDpy2Zcfq6ZK2Zdpod05DA

frangatang
6th Mar 2015, 04:07
Someone mentioned BA. Didnt know they went to la guardia!

YukonHusky
6th Mar 2015, 04:36
Cooperplace, Without much direct insight regarding Kazakhstan, your well-intended safety video might be possible and culturally accepted in Almaty In New York, London, Sydney, etc., not so likely. With no ill intent and a bit of well intended sarcasm, which film ratings would apply in Kazakhstan?

In many western or westernised countries, the likelihood of even a cartoon showing passengers perishing in fire would not wash. Whether it would help is left to one's perspective, but the suggestion reminded me of videos while awaiting a driver's license exam in mainland China. Good intentions perhaps and all sorts of devastating death and destruction, but unclear positive results in practice.

YukonHusky
6th Mar 2015, 04:46
Someone mentioned BA. Didnt know they went to la guardia!
Wasn't the BA reference to Braking Action, and a suggestion it was either good or not so good based on prior landings? Otherwise, I'm fairly sure BA does not land at LGA unless there's an emergency with the plane or at JFK or perhaps EWR.

Miraculix
6th Mar 2015, 06:25
I've flown MD80's for 15 years, often in winter conditions and on slippery runways.

One thing during during approach briefing is the threat analyzing. It is paramount in winter conditions or wet runways, that the issue with tail-blanking is mentioned. The only way to get back directional control is un-reverse and forward idle.

I'm not speculating that this happened here, only stating a big difference with this particular aircraft type versus Airbus and Boeing with wing mounted engines.

kildress
6th Mar 2015, 07:15
The BA reference was to activity at EWR.

OldLurker
6th Mar 2015, 07:41
As for pax taking their bags:

I wonder whether the pilots or CC of this aircraft took their bags ...?

I've never been in a slides-type evacuation (must fly more so the odds catch up). But it seems to me that some are more urgent than others. In this case, without having been on board, I'd guess that the situation wasn't of the "Get out NOW NOW NOW or you're dead!" type. The aircraft was in pretty good shape (considering), the crew may not have perceived imminent danger of death – in fact, there was none – and the evacuation may have been calm rather than rush. In that situation a SLF, looking out of the window at the climate, might be forgiven for getting her coat out of the overhead if she wasn't wearing it! And, of course, her handbag.

Then, of course, there are other factors for SLF to consider: they might anticipate long delay in getting their bag back if they didn't take it with them; and they might have read the frequent reports of passengers' baggage being looted after crashes.

Skeleton
6th Mar 2015, 08:15
OldLurker,

Just so you know, if we are ever on an aircraft and the slides are thrown and a emergency evacuation is ordered, you will be getting of my way if you are farting about looking for you hat coat, bag etc. If that means i have to go over the top of you or through you to get out that is exactly what will happen.

It is called a emergency evacuation for a reason, it is never routine, if the cabin crew are instructing you to get off, that is exactly what you should be doing, no passenger on that aircraft was capable of making an assessment on the fire risk etc. I would rather be on the tarmac feeling cold than frying to death because some selfish sod was trying to wrap up warm before exiting.

OldLurker
6th Mar 2015, 08:37
Skeleton, I'm sure you'd feel fully justified in bashing everyone out the way whatever the circumstances.

Now, back to real life and the incident actually under discussion: did you read my post? Does it occur to you (1) that the cabin crew may have assessed the situation as not requiring the sort of panic in which pax like you kill others to save themselves, (2) that a passenger standing in the aisle waiting for those ahead may have time to get something out of the overhead without delaying you in the least?

No Fly Zone
6th Mar 2015, 09:15
Be for the Asiana smash at SFO, little was heard about SLCs taking their CO bangs with them. In that case, the pix of same were shocking and they raised the issue. As a general, vague cultural thing, Asians are more focused on the "Me and My Stuff" issue than are Western PAX. (Sorry, but true). Again general, Europeans and North Americans are more likely to leave the bag and Get (TF) out, perhaps knowing that time is important. Others, less familiar with CRASH scenarios may take their time, collect their goods and consider it a different, but ~~routine departure from the aircraft. Sad, not intended as racist, but painfully true. In any genuine evacuation, a few of the reported 'minor injuries during evacuation,' result from balkers (sp?) getting pushed from behind. Sorry honey... There are 50+ people behind you and none of them will wait while you decide whether the slide may run your panty hose or damage your new, oh so special skirt. If you do not move on your own, we'll help you and it may not be gentle. With your precious new purse - or with out it, get out of the [impolite word] airplane, NOW!:ugh::{
On the professional side, I have no clue what went wrong and I refuse to speculate. NTSB will issue a preliminary report in a few weeks and a final report in a bit more than a year. Until I see that detail I cannot speak about anything other than generic, often idiot passengers. Again, if the slide ahead of you is clear and the FA says GO, you'd better do it. If I'm behind you and you do not move, we may slide down together, simple because I AM going.
Darn few Grandmas and Grandpas read this space, so please share the details with your relatives. If they get a nudge or a shove, of even hollered at while trying to make up their minds, remember that there may be 50+ souls behind them, waiting to use that same exist door or hatch. We'll honor your dignity and modesty most of the time, dear, but not today. Today. get your fragile behind down that slide, NOW!:eek:

AN2 Driver
6th Mar 2015, 09:20
Realistically: To stop people from grabbing their belongings means to stop them having them in the first place. Getting rid of the overhead bins, forcing them to check EVERYTHING in but a very small bag they can wear on themselfs. Even then, you can't really tell them to keep their wintercoats on during the flight and they will grab them on the way out if there is any chance.

No, it is not nice, no it is not how it should be, but that is how it is.

Now which airline would want to sue passengers who have been through a "suboptimal" experience already? What would the impression be if other authorities did that? You get the evacuees in a room and all those who have their bag with them get arrested?

Again, if we want them to stop taking their stuff, then it has to go in the hold and not be reachable. Now if that is what we can realistically do and what we want to subject passengers to, others will have to decide. Not being able to work during a flight or even read from their tablet e.t.c. due to such rules might indeed cause a lot of folks to simply not bother anymore.

What should be done though is to finally enforce the handbaggage rules properly.

MatrixMan
6th Mar 2015, 10:14
I wonder whether the pilots or CC of this aircraft took their bags ...? :ugh:

...I'd like...No...I'd HOPE to think the Captains and F/O priority is the safety and well-being of his/their passengers and crew...

Not his monthly copy of Pilot magazine. Plus, I'm sure their loss would be covered by the airline. Along with all the PAXs belongings?!

Skeleton
6th Mar 2015, 10:22
Skeleton, I'm sure you'd feel fully justified in bashing everyone out the way whatever the circumstances.

Now, back to real life and the incident actually under discussion: did you read my post? Does it occur to you (1) that the cabin crew may have assessed the situation as not requiring the sort of panic in which pax like you kill others to save themselves, (2) that a passenger standing in the aisle waiting for those ahead may have time to get something out of the overhead without delaying you in the least?

Oldlurker, Did you read my post?

I did not say i would be justified in bashing everyone out the way whatever the circumstances, please do not misquote me. I also made no mention of this particular incident, again please do not misquote me.

I said that in the event of an emergency evacuation called by the crew if you were in my way, getting your hat and coat and you were stopping (delaying) me I would be coming through. Please do not twist my words in future to further your own agenda.

e1229
6th Mar 2015, 11:13
Since this thread became a discussion about PAX carrying their luggages, my 2 cents. There are just 2 possible alternatives to avoid that:

1 - Don't allow any PAX to carry on their belongings. That way, there won't be much things to be taken out; or

2 - Try to understand why PAX do that, and act properly:

- You know that nobody cheks if each passanger has taken the correct luggage at the belt, so each PAX is responsible for checking it and complaining it someone took it by mistake. And very few can be done if someone just left the airport with your stuff. And very little indenization will be given to you, based on the weight of your luggage. Conclusion: PAX won't put valuable stuff on that, and will take it onboard

- I can't say that it's the rule, but many companies advise you that you shouldn't dispatch valuable itens, like notebooks. Again, PAX will take that onboard.

- Once onboard, you're advised to not forget your personal itens when you arrive. Fly more than once, and you'll have heard that many times: your goods are yours responsability.

And when something goes wrong, and puts you into some stressfull situation, you want people to think properly? In general their behavior will revert to some basic rules: must get out of here, I'm by my own, and I'm able (in the sense that "I can whithstand") taking all my things with me and rush to the exit.

Why would anyone not take his personal belongings? Will anyone stop thinking "this one second that I have to take my things might be precious to someone that is 15 rows behind me" ?

Jwscud
6th Mar 2015, 11:26
How many companies in the US are using TALPA tools? I know their development was led by the FAA but it appears that many U.S. majors (including Delta) are yet to implement them on the line.

Here in Europe, we have been using them this winter and I am a big fan. Looking at the reported conditions ours would give a BA of medium or Medium to poor depending on whether it was snow or slush, whereas the PIREP gave BA good.

The whole point of TALPA was to remove the subjectivity from BA issues and to provide flight crews with some well assessed data. Without inferring anything about this accident, the disparity between reported BA and what TALPA might suggest indicates that it's very much necessary!

Centaurus
6th Mar 2015, 11:36
The only way to get back directional control is un-reverse and forward idle.
In fact this becomes a very skilful and tricky manoeuvre when practiced in a simulator. The Boeing 737 FCTM advice is to first stop any braking - whether autobrakes or manual. Then select idle reverse - (not forward idle) while keeping in mind that it takes several seconds to actually reach idle N1 from high power reverse. Once the aircraft is under control using flight controls and aligned with the runway direction, re-introduce braking and symmetric reverse thrust. A significant amount of runway is used while all this is going on.

It takes considerable time to wind up the engines from ground idle reverse to full reverse and by the time the engines reach full reverse it is not very effective anyway in the low speed below 80 knot range. In the simulator we often noted difficulty experienced by the PF is locating the reverse idle detent by feel; especially if the idle reverse detent is sometimes ill-defined. In order to quickly reach idle reverse N1, the levers must be moved rapidly (not slowly) down to the reverse detent There is no time to look down to where you think the detent is, as all concentration is outside the cockpit. If the pilot misses the detent at first go and inadvertently goes into forward thrust, this can exacerbate a sideways slide especially if one engine goes to idle reverse while the other goes into forward thrust while winding down towards the idle reverse detent.

Crews that do not have regular practice in the simulator on slippery runway crosswind operations, may be unpleasantly surprised when it happens for real - especially to have the presence of mind to first completely release all braking action which would seen contrary to commonsense handling on a slippery runway. There are several ways to release all braking dependent on aircraft type and this needs to be briefed if a slippery runway crosswind landing is contemplated. From experience in the simulator it takes at least five practice runs (touch-down and roll-outs) before confidence and competence are attained. The correct sequence of actions is vital.

West Coast
6th Mar 2015, 14:38
How many companies in the US are using TALPA tools?

At least a few are. Following the Southwest excursion at MDW the FAA issued a safety alert for operators (SAFO) describing the assessments. A number of airlines, mine included now do them for each landing, we had done similar for takeoffs prior.

angels
6th Mar 2015, 15:10
Passengers, just like pilots and CC, are human beings and react in different ways to emergencies. There will be heroes and there will be people who want to take a bathroom break (FFS, I'm astonished at that one).

I'm in Skeleton's camp. If there is an evacuation and you are looking for your duty free gaspers and are in my way, you lose.

We often see pics of incidents like this where pax have their hand baggage. The KTM incident is another one in the news right now, rucksacks and all. But are there studies of passengers' behaviour? Do the authorities look back and say, "Hey, a lot of the pax took their hand baggage, we ought to be concerned about this."?

Or do they just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, it was alright this time."??

sandiego89
6th Mar 2015, 15:14
The whole evacuation time requirment is rather unrealistic. I was watching a segment on the evac certification on the A-380, and it was done with healthy folks, indoors, think they were paid, and all were wearing comfy sports gear, without bags, and were well briefed. Most importantly they knew why they were there, and had a clear goal of beating the time requirment.

Throw in a surprise evacuation, with zero warning, passengers of all ages/builds/health, bad weather, perhaps no verbal order or delayed order, coats, panic, bags, some doors slides not available, (yes I know the tests disable some egree points) etc.

Human nature is the largest problem, many folks are going to grab their purse or backpack and since it likely carries some important stuff it can be understood (not to say it is worth your life). It would likely be days until they got their stuff back, if it survived. I'll leave my wheelie bag, duty free bag and coat behind thanks- (some won't).

Airlines and their bag fees have made the problem much worse. Thank you to Southwest and few others for bucking this trend.

RatherBeFlying
6th Mar 2015, 16:22
As before mentioned the evacuation demonstrations are done with prebriefed, reasonably fit people without cabin baggage.

There seems to be enough real world data about the amount of cabin baggage that emerges in real evacuations.

Demonstration evacuations for certification should be performed with the usual cabin baggage carried off by the pax.

If they're not all getting off in time, more doors and slides should be required:E

Mr Angry from Purley
6th Mar 2015, 16:25
Mr Boeing and airbus need central locking on the overhead lockers - when engines go off they unlock hey presto

777Yank
6th Mar 2015, 16:39
There have been several accidents attributed to improper use of the tiller during takeoff. Then I saw this post from another pilot:


"Over the years of flying right seat on the DC-9 I've seen several Captains regularly grab the tiller just after touch down.
You have to wonder if their feet are still in the game screaming down the runway well over 100 knots.
We had a DC-10 coming in from Hawaii years ago landing on 17C at DFW with a wet runway and depart the runway off to the west into the grass."

Not saying it was the cause here, but boneheads still continue to use the tiller not just for takeoff, but for landing. Incredible!

MarcK
6th Mar 2015, 16:40
Mr Boeing and airbus need central locking on the overhead lockers - when engines go off they unlock hey presto
So then I'll put my important stuff (like the laptop I'm using during the flight) under the seat ahead of me. Check, and Mate.

Pablo26
6th Mar 2015, 18:40
MarcK, not mate just yet... yes, locks won't completely eliminate the problem, but it will mean that pax will only be able to take small items like briefcases and knapsacks with them rather than those damned big rolling suitcases that they stuff into the overheads. Also, (and perhaps more importantly) they will be grabbing them while still in their seats, rather than while blocking the aisles.

DCP123
6th Mar 2015, 18:43
Marck, I don't think that locking the overheads while the engines are running is realistic, but I don't think your objection that people would just put their valuables in a bag under the seat would actually defeat the purpose.

All of us have gotten off a crowded plane before. Unless you're next to the door in use, you need to wait for the folks in the aisle to get out of the way before you can leave your row (at least in economy). How long does it really take to grab whatever you've stuffed under your seat? How much does, say, a purse or shoulder bag slow you down as you walk down the aisle? Is it really an obstruction in going down the slide? I expect that bringing this sort of bag causes almost no delay. If it hasn't already done so, the FAA should run some tests and find out.

As many here have recognized, instructing passengers (yes, as a paying customer, I actually do find the acronym "SLF" offensive, thanks for asking) to leave their bags behind doesn't work. It's sort of like the war on drugs that way. Screaming about how much you hate the people who do it won't work either. So, perhaps it would be a better ides to set a realistic goal (say, no wheelies or other large bags) and setting egress requirements for new aircraft that ensure a reasonable evacuation time even if not everyone getting off is a fit young person wearing nothing more than running shoes and a track suit.

Also, airline practices of making carry-on bags free and charging for every checked bag are just stupid, whether you look at them from the point of view of safety, comfort, quick aircraft turnaround or maximizing airline revenue. If anything, a bag over a certain minimal purse/briefcase size that fits under the seat, should cost more than the same bag in the hold to encourage passengers to do the thing that makes it easier, more comfortable and sometimes safer for the airline to get everyone to their destination. Creating financial incentives for passengers to make travel less convenient, efficient and safe is stupid and probably shouldn't even be legal.

As for me, in an evacuation, I'll probably leave my stuff behind (as a guy with my phone, money and wallet in my pockets, that's pretty easy), but if the risk seems low, the crew seems calm and everyone else is doing it, I don't know. I might bring the small bag under the seat with my laptop, etc. I would never bring a bag out of the overhead compartment though.

Interested Passenger
6th Mar 2015, 19:16
overhead locks operate with seatbelt signs. simple

MichaelKPIT
6th Mar 2015, 19:30
All well and good until that passenger who's above the rules, who doesn't have all his stuff put away before the seat belt sign comes on. "Please sir - you have to put all that cr*p away before we . . . oh you can't!"

EDDNHopper
6th Mar 2015, 19:52
Central locking on the overhead bins? Sorry, but on which planet do you live?

Apart from trying to put their stuff elsewhere etc. etc., some pax will inevitably fail to notice (or will have forgotten) that the bins are locked and will try again and again to open them, thus further delaying the evac. As e1229 aptly put it:

Try to understand why PAX do that, and act properly

i.e. design evac such that it is taking account of human behaviour. Ultimately, this means wider aisles, less seats....

On a different planet, too. I know.

AirScotia
6th Mar 2015, 20:03
Given the conditions, I can certainly understand why passengers would want to get their coats from the overhead lockers before leaving the aircraft. There would inevitably be a delay before pax were got into rescue vehicles and ferried to an indoors location. It would a challenge to any old or infirm person even with warm clothes in a subzero snowstorm. A basic calculation of chances of dying from fireball / smoke, vs dying from hypothermia...not actually that simple.

And while you're getting your parka, you might as well get your handbag / laptop / passport / phone. Frankly, I would.

stuminisprite
6th Mar 2015, 20:20
locking overhead lockers is an absolute joke! seriously. the fact that, medical kit, spare life vests, doctors box, loudhailer, oxygen cylinders etc etc are all stored in them.

its called emergency equipment folks.........


Nothing more to say.

Flap62
6th Mar 2015, 21:12
AirScotia,

I do wonder sometimes if we should have a more rigorous vetting procedure before letting people fly. If you block me and my familiy's way to an exit in an emergency evacuation while you get your phone, laptop, man bag or whatever then you better brace yourself fella.

neilki
6th Mar 2015, 21:24
i've been waiting years to bring this up; but we've all grown up making and hearing cabin safety briefings before take off.
Why, with landing being the most statistically risk prone phase of flight, should we not repeat the briefing, with emphasis on emergency egress and how leave the aircraft in a sensible (no bags) fashion.
discuss.?

Capt Claret
6th Mar 2015, 21:27
Mr Boeing and airbus need central locking on the overhead lockers - when engines go off they unlock hey presto

So now we'll evacuate with the engines running to keep the lockers locked.

overhead locks operate with seatbelt signs. simple

Somewhat counter intuitive to be ordering pax to evacuate whilst the seatbelt sign stays on in order to lock the lockers!

expat400
6th Mar 2015, 21:57
Oh my god... Wonder if you "bag-police" guys are the same as the "guard-police"?

How many people have died due to fellow pax bringing some stuff with them in an accident like this one? Have you seen people bringing bags out of a burning aircraft?

mm43
6th Mar 2015, 22:49
NTSB Issues Brief Update on the Delta Air Lines Accident at LaGuardia (http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20150306.aspx)

TacomaSailor
6th Mar 2015, 22:56
I am a big guy and barely fit in the seats available in the back of the bus

My business and professional life is in my computer

My wallet & passport are in my computer bag 'cause the airline seat is so narrow that I can not sit down with it in my pocket

There is no way in hell I am getting off the airplane without my small computer bag and computer.

No one anytime anywhere has shown a shred of evidence that passengers carrying their personal effects hinders evacuation

The rude and condescending remarks made here about passengers remind me why current air travel is so distasteful compared to 40 some years ago. Back then passengers were welcome guests, now much of the airplane staff treat us as unwashed, unwelcome, ignorant interlopers.

LGW Vulture
6th Mar 2015, 23:18
Yeah...no wonder when you continue to ignore or disobey instructions. :ugh:

Una Due Tfc
6th Mar 2015, 23:48
Carrying a bag in your arms increases the risk of you injuring yourself going down the slide, particularly on a widebody. Extra mass = more impact absorbed by your ankles etc and you are unbalanced reaching the bottom. Combine that with being elderly or fat and it's goodbye ankles. Not to mention leaving people to potentially burn to death while you retrieve your belongings.

NSEU
6th Mar 2015, 23:51
How many people have died due to fellow pax bringing some stuff with them in an accident like this one?

It's relatively easy to categorise the type of accident well after the event. Aircraft incidents always have the potential of becoming accidents very quickly.

Have you seen people bringing bags out of a burning aircraft?

Asiana Flight 214 crash video shows terrifying moment passengers fled burning jet | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358736/Asiana-Flight-214-crash-video-shows-terrifying-moment-passengers-fled-burning-jet.html)

We once had an over-enthusiastic flight crew member break his arm when he took a fire extinguisher down a slide with him when there was a brake fire. Is it a possibility that the extinguisher interfered with his ability to balance on the slide?

And what if the passengers lose these items on the way down the slides. Do we have to slide through a debris field or stumble over a pile of cabin bags at the end of a slide?

My wallet & passport are in my computer bag 'cause the airline seat is so narrow that I can not sit down with it in my pocket

I really don't think economy passenger seat widths have changed that much in 40 years. I carry back up data for my computer on a multi-gigabyte USB stick in my pocket. A passport I can always carry in my shirt pocket.
Agreed, things have changed in 40 years. In general, people have become much more blasé about air travel, treat air travel as they would bus travel, do ignore the advice given to them based on decades of safety studies (including dressing appropriately).

now much of the airplane staff treat us as unwashed, unwelcome, ignorant interlopers.

Wouldn't it be the responsibility of staff to treat you as ignorant? They can't assume you know everything about safety, hence the safety briefing.. and the safety cards in the seat pocket (which most seem to ignore). Do you keep your sensible shoes on for takeoff and landing? (safety cards sometimes tell you this) I'm sure the passenger next to you would care more about whether you are unwashed or not.
40 years ago you would have been denied boarding for wearing t-shirts, shorts and sandals (on safety grounds). How times have changed.

PrivtPilotRadarTech
7th Mar 2015, 00:25
Thanks Miraculix and Centaurus, that was quite interesting reading about the technical problems associated with thrust-reversers on rear-mounted engines when landing on slick runways. It makes sense. That's why I read Pprune- to get insight from pros.

skyhighfallguy
7th Mar 2015, 00:47
tacomasailor


I suggest you get your life in order and not depend on your computer bag. certainly a US passport will fit in your pocket along with driver's license, money and even a cell phone.

IF I ordered an evacuation and ordered you to not take your bag AND YOU DID NOT COMPLY and anyone was hurt due to this I WOULD HOPE MY COMPANY WOULD SUE THE HELL OUT OF YOU>


There are FEDERAL LAWS about following the instructions of the flight crew.

and if you are so big that you can't put your wallet in your pocket, buy first class seats or two coach seats.

Sorry, airliners are built for average size people. Get over it. I'm big too and my shoulders stick out in the aisle when I am deadheading . Deal with it.

And flying 40 years ago? Fine. Contact your congressman and reinstate the regulated airline environment


There is one boss on the plane, the captain. The others are his representatives on the spot. Copilot, Flight Attendants and so forth.

And if you don't want to fly with me, fine.

AirScotia
7th Mar 2015, 00:49
Flap62: AirScotia,

I do wonder sometimes if we should have a more rigorous vetting procedure before letting people fly. If you block me and my familiy's way to an exit in an emergency evacuation while you get your phone, laptop, man bag or whatever then you better brace yourself fella.

TacomaSailor: The rude and condescending remarks made here about passengers remind me why current air travel is so distasteful compared to 40 some years ago. Back then passengers were welcome guests, now much of the airplane staff treat us as unwashed, unwelcome, ignorant interlopers.


I'm always struck by the way that so many PPruners sneer at passengers, in particular the fact that pax don't pay attention to the safety briefing, and don't behave 'correctly' in emergencies.

Unlike the airline staff, passengers are not trained in emergencies. Quite the contrary - the flight is sold to them as a seamless way to get from Airport A to Airport B, and the safety briefing is carefully designed to be a perfunctory bit of bureaucracy that will bore the pants off every customer by the third flight. (If they genuinely wanted customers to pay attention they'd change the wording and the order of instructions frequently.) Reminding the paying customers that they're doing something dangerous is the LAST thing a commercial airline wants to do. So air crew can't act sniffy when passengers are badly prepared in a moment of crisis. The whole industry is designed to keep them happily unprepared. You can't have it both ways.

I've often thought that it would sensible to encourage passengers to wear crossbody pouches for phones/passports, and to put their coats on before landing if conditions were cold. But that would, of course, concentrate passengers' minds on the probability of a landing accident, which would be commercial suicide.

skyhighfallguy
7th Mar 2015, 00:56
airscotia.

if you don't like the wording, imagine that the world does not revolve around you. it revolves around the lowest common denominator and is not so HIGH BROW as to provide entertainment for you.

I have flown for 40 years (as a pilot) and as aan example, even while deadheading in uniform, I pay attention to the Flight Attendant briefing and I re read the handy information card in the seat pocket ahead of you.

IF I can do this, even though I am tested and basically live in a plane, you can certainly pay attention and understand that someone who is not as WORLDLY as you might not understand.

IF you want things YOUR way, why not start your own airline or buy your own corporate jet.

Octane
7th Mar 2015, 04:22
TacomaSailor, your bag would be as useless as tits on a bull if you died of smoke inhalation because selfish gits like yourself impeded an evacuation just to collect your gear from overhead lockers.
If I was unlucky enough to be sitting on the window side of you during an emergency evacuation and you were farting about with the lockers, I would be clambering over the seats in front of me.
Your claim that people collecting their items from overhead would not slow down an evacuation is laughable. I'm not sure you're even being serious? Why the hell do you think it can take up to 15 minutes to leave an aircraft once the doors open. You have elderly, young, short, unfit, handicapped, forgetful, confused, disorganized etc etc people trying to sort themselves out. In other words it can be complete chaos.
If I'm ever unlucky enough to be involved in an evacuation, I want to be off the aircraft in seconds, not minutes.
Do yourself a favour and google how many people have died of smoke inhalation because they couldn't get off in time. There are several well known cases, including ones involving intact aircraft i.e. they didn't crash.....

Shore Guy
7th Mar 2015, 04:44
All cockpit qualified crewmembers......go figure


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ5l2keoF40

expat400
7th Mar 2015, 08:21
When 50 pax have died due to fellow pax bringing their bags during evacuation we might get central locking on the bins. Until then such an extremely expensive modification won't happen. So until then do as I do, stop whining and accept that pax (including deadheading crew) will bring stuff off the plane.
Foul mouthing our passengers here won't help.

Ian W
7th Mar 2015, 09:41
AirScotia,

I do wonder sometimes if we should have a more rigorous vetting procedure before letting people fly. If you block me and my familiy's way to an exit in an emergency evacuation while you get your phone, laptop, man bag or whatever then you better brace yourself fella.

Nothing like a brawl breaking out in the aisle to increase the speed of evacuation. :rolleyes:
There do appear to be some posting here that would cause additional problems by being 'forceful' (some would call it panic) :=

People are going to want to take important stuff, because otherwise, if it survives the crash, it will almost certainly be stolen by other pax or even the airline or airport staff (as happened in the South West wheelbarrow case The Crash Landing of Southwest 345 | Nick Bradbury (http://nickbradbury.com/2013/07/28/the-crash-landing-of-southwest-345/) ) and some things like immigration papers passprts can be irreplaceable do not expect someone to leave those.

Some thought needs to be given to how to handle pax who have such valuable and attractive or irreplaceable items. Perhaps advice on use of a small document bag of a set size. Other larger items like laptops will have to be left on board - but the airline MUST meet its duty of care of the pax belongings otherwise the pax will take that duty of care into their own hands and end up in hand-to-hand combat in the aisles with the people seat surfing past them. :ouch:

tupungato
7th Mar 2015, 11:38
The wing damage:

http://i.imgur.com/bM2E7Mo.jpg

YukonHusky
7th Mar 2015, 12:02
Ian W: "... but the airline MUST meet its duty of care of the pax belongings otherwise the pax will take that duty of care into their own hands and end up in hand-to-hand combat in the aisles with the people seat surfing past them. :ouch:"

In certain locations, emergency situations certainly are not required for passengers adopting hand-to-hand combat in the aisles. For example, certain Asian nations where a few too many grandfathers, mothers, etc. rip off their seat belts in preparation for landing or ASAP upon touching down, jump out of their seats like LeBron James to grab their life important carry-on luggage, and, other passengers be dammed <sic>, try to pull off their best Usain Bolt impersonations sprinting up the aisles ...

SortieIII
7th Mar 2015, 13:17
I am a big guy and barely fit in the seats available in the back of the bus

My business and professional life is in my computer

My wallet & passport are in my computer bag 'cause the airline seat is so narrow that I can not sit down with it in my pocket

There is no way in hell I am getting off the airplane without my small computer bag and computer.

No one anytime anywhere has shown a shred of evidence that passengers carrying their personal effects hinders evacuation

The rude and condescending remarks made here about passengers remind me why current air travel is so distasteful compared to 40 some years ago. Back then passengers were welcome guests, now much of the airplane staff treat us as unwashed, unwelcome, ignorant interlopers.
7th Mar 2015 01:49

It is possible that the rude and condescending remarks are a reflection of today's mean spirited society? Might also be a product of the treatment that is regularly handed out by passengers to flight crews?

Anyways, as far as I remember, the admonition to leave the bags, high heel shoes, and other SHARP things behind is to avoid damaging the escape slides, and thereby condemning those who are behind you in the queue!

Sorry to see the aircraft in that state, I hope that the crew come out of this OK.

AirScotia
7th Mar 2015, 15:57
airscotia.

if you don't like the wording, imagine that the world does not revolve around you. it revolves around the lowest common denominator and is not so HIGH BROW as to provide entertainment for you.

Skyhigh, I'm afraid I can't understand your post at all. Can you clarify, please?

I think this thread highlights the fact that there's an inherent schism between the technical providers of air transport, and the commercial staff whose purpose is to sell the service profitably in a highly regulated environment full of competition. Both sides have different objectives and different constraints. The passenger becomes part of the battlefront.

Getting a passenger off a damaged plane is a requirement for the technical staff. However, the passenger may well consist of more than the body in a seat. A passenger shivering on the runway without vital medication, such as heart pills, insulin, steroids, asthma medicines, may rapidly become an emergency of a different kind - just one that's no longer the responsibility of pilots and cabin crew. A passenger separated permanently from identification documents, passport, medical prescriptions, may be more than slightly inconvenienced. In these situations, passengers have learned that no-one on the airline side takes much responsibility for them. This is not the passengers' fault.

Aviation professionals seem to think of evacuations as being the kind of thing they've taken part in as training exercises, with a lot of young, fit people moving purposefully for the exits to do something they've had a chance to practice before. In reality, a crash-landed plane is likely to contain a number of people who've been injured and can't move easily, elderly people who need help even to leave their seats, and large objects ejected from overhead lockers or ripped loose from the galleys. Given the narrowness of the aisle(s), it is likely that passengers will be stuck in place for a bit, waiting for a route to clear. If there isn't a smell of burning or kerosene, and the engines are off, and the plane isn't too far from horizontal, and you can't vacate the plane in the next ten seconds on account of injured people being helped, why wouldn't you take the five/six seconds to retrieve your bag/coat from the locker? Especially when you know the airline will do b*gger all to connect you with your belongings once you're off the plane.

Yes, it would be best if passengers got off the plane without delay. It would also be best if they got off the plane with vital pills and paperwork. Perhaps the industry should address some inconvenient truths?

cwatters
7th Mar 2015, 17:35
No one anytime anywhere has shown a shred of evidence that passengers carrying their personal effects hinders evacuation

Air Accidents Investigation: Boeing 737-804, G-GDFJ (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/october_2013/boeing_737_804__g_gdfj.cfm)

Page 22

Passengers stood up and started moving towards the exits. Some tried to recover personal items from the overhead lockers, which created restrictions in the flow towards the exits.

Page 31

The evacuation took an estimated 3 minutes and 38 seconds. Passengers attempting to recover property from the overhead lockers delayed movement towards the exits, and the age or infirmity of some of the passengers may have extended the evacuation time.

stuminisprite
7th Mar 2015, 20:12
seriously, are people still going on about locking the overhead lockers???

THE EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT AND MEDICAL KIT IS STORED IN THEM!!!!!



it......wont......happen.:ugh:

EEngr
7th Mar 2015, 20:22
pax evacuate with hand baggage.
....
Do the cabin crew police that at emergency exits?What would be the result of that? A large pile of abandoned hand baggage piled up around the exit, blocking access.

enola-gay
7th Mar 2015, 21:10
The fight safety briefing is nothing of the sort. It is an emergency response briefing, but no airline will call it that. The flight deck says that the cabin crew are there primarily for “your safety”. I would argue they are nothing of the sort, otherwise they would all be wearing hi-viz vests and weapons and would obey the seat belt signs like pax do. Cabin crew are there to serve the calm pax with sustenance and advice and control the unruly pax. Why do they never sit down and belt up until FL100? Why do they serve hot drinks with the seat belt sign illuminated? Why do some pilots leave the seat belt sign on all the way from JFK to Shannon in calm air? Everyone on board disregards it after 2 hours and with good reason: either HAL has taken over the cockpit or Nigel has dozed off and forgotten to switch it off until initial decent into LHR.

A safe aircraft is one that is flown competently by an alert flight crew who fully understand how it works in all designed environments, is maintained by engineers who fully understand how to preserve design function & reverse the degradation of use, one which avoids un-flyable weather and contains pax with no malice to their fellow man. The safety briefing is redundant unless one or more of the above fails, by which time safety has been lost and an emergency prevails.

As individuals we all learn from birth how to handle emergencies depending on our own abilities and acuities and life experience. If your backside is on fire you will fight your way over Mr Jones trying to recover her duty free, as evidenced in the Manchester BA 737 in 1985.

However if the aircraft has come to rest and is damaged but evidently not life-threatening, common sense says “I will get out of here with both my backside and my backpack” because I am sure about my backside but about not my backpack.

No amount of airline brainwashing will alter that and no amount of “commander control” will influence it.

There is simply too much heavy hand baggage allowed on board, most of which ought to be diverted in the hold. The overhead lockers should be replaced with open coat racks like on trains. Mr O’Leary of course will prevent that because he sees hold baggage as an unnecessary cost.

Smilin_Ed
7th Mar 2015, 21:20
Yes, it would be best if passengers got off the plane without delay. It would also be best if they got off the plane with vital pills and paperwork. Perhaps the industry should address some inconvenient truths?

Despite their reluctance, the airlines and their governing regulators need to get it across to passengers that when they enter an airplane they are entering a survival situation and they need to be prepared.

I have said this before on other threads: When I travel by air I keep my passport, other identification, and at least two day's worth of medications (in plastic pill pouches) on my person in zipped or buttoned pockets. My shoes are always on my feet and tied securely. No slip-on shoes!. (My wife does the same.) I have been in two serious crashes. I am 78 years old but I am ready to RUN from a crashed plane.:=

NSEU
7th Mar 2015, 21:52
A passenger shivering on the runway without vital medication, such as heart pills, insulin, steroids, asthma medicines, may rapidly become an emergency of a different kind - just one that's no longer the responsibility of pilots and cabin crew. A passenger separated permanently from identification documents, passport, medical prescriptions, may be more than slightly inconvenienced.

Perhaps those passengers requiring essential medication should consider placing a small neck pouch/hip bag in the seat pocket containing these items, rather than placing them in the overhead locker. But how can you compare death and disfigurement with short term discomfort and inconvenience? If the aircraft does land at an airport, there should be a fleet of ambulances and trained medical staff heading in your direction. Ground staff should be able to provide blankets for warmth. It is the responsibility of the crew to attend to your needs on the ground in the shorter term. It is in the airline's interest to attend to the passengers in the longer term.

If the plane ditches in the ocean, what would the man requiring his computer do then?

philbky
7th Mar 2015, 22:36
With particular postings in mind I would say this. Any survivable landing accident should be treated in the same way - you have 90 seconds to get out, the 90 seconds the authorities tell us is the critical time if the aircraft is on fire. Fire may not be evident or start immediately. In the Stockport accident in 1967 the fire that caused many deaths of the injured didn't occur for several minutes.

Any idiot that stops to collect personal belongings not only risks their own life but risks becoming a murdering idiot by blocking the escape of those obstructed by their stupid selfishness.

I regularly fly on four types the 777, 747, 737 and A319. I know the safety cards and door operations by heart. I can put on a life vest blindfold, though I accept a survivable landing on water is highly unlikely. For some reason I think it is a good idea to refresh my memory on every sector, even consecutive sectors on the same type on the same day.

Anyone exiting a crashed airliner carrying any item of clothing or hand baggage in their hands should be arrested and charged both with endangering the safety of the other passengers and disregarding the lawful instructions of the crew.

On most flights I take my hand baggage includes over £4000 of photographic gear and a tablet. All are insured. Even if they were not, they can be replaced, my fellow passengers and I cannot.

AirScotia
7th Mar 2015, 23:04
Perhaps those passengers requiring essential medication should consider placing a small neck pouch/hip bag in the seat pocket containing these items, rather than placing them in the overhead locker.

I agree wholeheartedly. I do so myself. But airlines never even hint that passengers should do this, and all the many shops in duty-free don't sell 'take- on emergency pouches'. Why not, do you think?

If the aircraft does land at an airport, there should be a fleet of ambulances and trained medical staff heading in your direction.

You'd hope so, but there have been more than a few accidents where the emergency services have been slow to arrive - for example, the Asiana crash. The immediate priority is for the fire services to make the situation safe - the passengers are out of the aircraft and the initial need is to keep them out of the way. Getting them back to the terminal will need a bus or two, and the buses won't be sent until the situation is secure.

In conditions like the Delta incident, a passenger not in the best of health would suffer quickly without shelter or at least a coat.

AirScotia
7th Mar 2015, 23:22
I can put on a life vest blindfold,

Can you do this just from the safety briefing, or have you been given supplementary training?

I booked myself on a BA course, where we all had the chance to try on the safety vest. Despite having watched the safety briefing carefully many hundreds of times, all attendees found that it was much trickier than we expected. Even young and athletic oil-rig workers found themselves sticking their heads through the armhole.

Quite how passengers are expected to do this in a crisis situation is an interesting question.

Capt Claret
7th Mar 2015, 23:22
My shoes are always on my feet and tied securely. No slip-on shoes!.

That pax still travel in thongs, sandals, and the like astounds me. What hope for the general pax is there when even Mrs C, who's scared of flying, won't accept that most aeroplane crashes are survivable, ergo, one doesn't have to worry about escape enhancing footwear.

philbky
7th Mar 2015, 23:55
AirScotia, Arm hole? When was the course and where? Life vests have a hole for the head and lie on the chest leaving the arms free. You may be confusing a life vest with an immersion suit. If so, the suit should always be put on prior to boarding what is normally a helicopter for an over water trip to, for instance, an oil rig. If people have problems donning an immersion suit on terra firma with no need to rush they must be pretty cackhanded.

AirScotia
8th Mar 2015, 00:12
If people have problems donning an immersion suit on terra firma with no need to rush they must be pretty cackhanded.

I can only go by what I saw and experienced. Entirely fit 30-year-old men found themselves trying to connect the straps at the side, only to realise that they hadn't put their head through the necessary hole. It was surprisingly awkward to get all the bits in the right positions, even having watched cabin crew go through the motions many hundreds of times. Of course, it's not easy to perform an unfamiliar task in front of twenty sniggering adults, but then the circumstances under which it would have to be done for real are not likely to be quiet and serene either.

Note how many of the passengers standing on the wings of Sully's Airbus had made a hash of getting their vests on - and they surely knew they would need them in that situation.

It really is a shame for aviation pros that their planes aren't entirely populated by highly-trained military personnel, but only us cackhanded, dithering, unfit, disobedient punters who have the effrontery to want to get to another part of the planet without walking.

philbky
8th Mar 2015, 00:26
Hang on a minute. First you said they were putting their heads into the (non existent) arm holes, now they are not putting their heads into the necessary (and only) hole.

In the case of the Hudson incident most people would only have grabbed their vest in the very few moments prior to the landing, some were known to have been donning the vest either whilst leaving the aircraft or even after leaving.

Admittedly the cases in which vests are thought most likely to be used are where there is adequate time prior to a ditching for all to don the vest. They have only one hole to avoid confusion though the straps can be confusing.

In the unlikely event of a successful ditching on the open ocean the greatest problem would be to ensure passengers do not inflate their vests before leaving the aircraft, doubtless with their belongings if the attitude of some poster on here is typical.

Octane
8th Mar 2015, 03:31
My God! Smiling Ed! Two serious crashes! You are desperately unlucky to have experienced that. The odds of winning the Lottery have to be better than that, surely. Without a doubt you are the most qualified person here to comment on this nonsense of retrieving belongings before evacuating.
Like you, I carry all the essentials on me. Wallet, passport, medication if any etc etc. There is nothing in the overhead locker I'm not prepared to lose..

golfyankeesierra
8th Mar 2015, 03:47
This guy wasn't paying attention to the safety brief,
or the women (and the other guy) are just more technically inclined..;)http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2009/01/17/pass_wideweb__470x314,0.jpg

(Sorry, nothing to do with the Delta..)

Yaw String
8th Mar 2015, 05:57
If you are unable to imagine how taking your personal belongings may hinder a a successful evacuation of ALL passengers, take a look at the video,the link for which is posted in the Turkish Airlines incident,Kathmandu.
It is the Facebook video,with the still image of the evacuation,taken from outside.
Towards the end,there is the internal view,showing the potential chaos,if smoke or flames where to suddenly appear!
Can't seem to repost it myself...but as pilot and passenger,it gives me the willies to watch...

Comments about personal documents,I quite understand,but,after the bumping and sliding and graunching has finished,and you hear those words"unfasten your seatbelts,evacuate,evacuate"Are you really going to open the overhead bins,and extract them first!!!!!
Maybe,passport should always be with you...

Regarding the unusual use of the lifejacket!!!!Cold ears maybe!!!

A Nonny Mouse
8th Mar 2015, 08:12
There have been about 10 posts (some very insightful) about the actual incident, and pages of mostly drivel concerning passengers evacuating aircraft with baggage.

Moderators, please set up a new thread, maybe entitled "passengers evacuate aircraft with hand baggage" so that people who wish to discus this can do so at their leisure, without others, who would like to learn about the actual incident, having to trawl through pages and pages of repetitive discussion.

Thanks

TeachMe
8th Mar 2015, 08:40
I'm SLF so please forgive me, but many on here are missing a few critical points. Before I discuss that, let me first say that I would not grad my bag or anything before an emergency and that I keep my passports and anything not replaceable on my person at all times on flight.

The point that needs to be made is that current regulations, immigration and airline policy reward or at least encourage passengers to take their bags with them in an emergency. Examples I have read on this site over the years include:

1 - A crash landing with no fire (Asiana in SF????) where it took three days to return bags to passengers.

2 - A slide evac where passangers had to wait half a day in the terminal without any food / drinks provided to passengers who did not have any money / cards

Then, what happens when you are some nationality like Chinese or Indian and you land in the US and the plane does burn. Good luck proving anything to immigration!

The fact is if people are punished like this for doing the right thing, then nothing anyone can do will stop them from doing the wrong thing. That is human nature. The solution is to change the systems not just blame the people.

dsc810
8th Mar 2015, 10:47
Not to mention the problems of the expensive gear in the bag which mysteriously goes "missing" or gets "damaged" and then the arguments start with insurance over exactly whose fault it is and exactly when it was damaged/missing...in the accident or sometime later.

Passengers ain't stupid!

Chris2303
8th Mar 2015, 11:19
So we ban the elderly and fat from flying?

Goodbye air travel.

philbky
8th Mar 2015, 11:36
I have never had to evacuate an aircraft and hopefully never will.

I have been in charge of buildings and had to evacuate due to fire and bomb scares. It is hard enough to get people to multiple exits with wide corridors and to clear a building expeditiosly in those circumstances.

Those who keep banging on about collecting belongings and paperwork from an aircraft in extremis, because of problems that may arise after the event, should ask the airlines to have a tape made to be played just before the aircraft meets the ground.

"Passengers who wish to survive this event should, immediately the aircraft comes to a halt, leave the aircraft by the nearest available exit, checking first that their exit is not obstructed by fire and taking nothing with them Those that wish to gamble their lives because their possessions are more important than their continued existence should remain and assist those that want to have a chance of life to leave the aircraft. Once those passengers have left then, and only then, if you are still alive, may you collect your items and depart the aircraft."

Anyone who puts possessions and paperwork before life, whatever the problems that may arise later, is just plain dumb.

alawman
8th Mar 2015, 11:40
I read with interest about carrying medications on board in a pouch. A thread hijack maybe but:

How do you get them aboard even with prescriptions?

In 2007 my son was released from three days in hospital and not allowed in cabin any prescribed liquids and post release meds. After arriving in Darwin his temperature was abnormal but no access allowed. In Alice Springs with a nine hour delay due to storms in Darwin, equipment could not depart, as Darwin airport closed, a three hour connection became nine hours, only after he collapsed and was bright red with a burning temperature was I allowed access to baggage to get his meds!

I need a liquid nitro lingual spray since 2012 and have scripts and carry heart scans, stent size and location but it has never been allowed in cabin and I now never try to get it in, based on previous attempts. Cannot afford ($) to keep having $ confiscated. I had three international (7.5hr) sectors in two days last week plus domestic sectors in foreign countries.

How do people get meds on board?

Flightmech
8th Mar 2015, 11:51
"I'll have you know that in the event of an evacuation my catering and my crew comes first".
That's how we roll :-)

alf5071h
8th Mar 2015, 12:40
Many posts discuss an evacuation as though it was a precautionary or emergency event involving an intact aircraft. This was an accident, the aircraft was damaged and thus the issue is of post-accident survival. Greater damage could have involved incapacitation or trapped passengers, fire or even flooding given a few more yards or excursion.

The significance of this accident is as another warning of the hazards of runway overrun or excursion; this is being overlooked, it is a major safety issue. The accident is similar to several previous near-miss events; e.g. Midway, Jamaica, Jackson Hole. Why should we continue like this when there have been many indications of the risk.
Contaminated runway operations are one area where there are differences between Europe and the US. EASA now regulates performance and operation; the FAA has been hampered by operator interference in regulatory process and time taken to implement change, current safety activity is advisory and delegated to operators.
The FAA TALPA is a welcome initiative, but it is still some way from forcible implementation. Europe has embraced the substance of the TALPA safety activities, Airbus have published performance data based on contaminant depth and now aligns with airport reporting of braking action based on type and depth of contaminant. Many airports have changed to this type of reporting; not so in the US.

US operations depend extensively on visual conditions; IFR often restricts operations requiring use of non-ideal runways and tailwinds; tailwind and contaminant – NO, Never (no published data in Europe). There is less time to clear the runway, check contaminant, and report to crews. US operations appear complacent, sufficiently safe, or is there no other option because of commercial pressure, little appreciation the risks and reduced safety margins in contaminated operation?

Overrun accidents are not top of the safety list when comparing fatalities; one LoC accident with a wide body distorts the statistics. Alternatively overruns and excursions account for many more hull losses. Overruns with structural damage can impair evacuation; the industry may have been lucky – the hazard is just matched by design, but perhaps with little further safety margin.
Whereas there have been many LoC events where crew intervention recovered the aircraft, for contaminated operations once an aircraft is on the runway there is little more the crew can do to mitigate events for an unforeseen, unsafe situation.

How many of us have landed and thought – ‘that’s a bit close’ – did we learn. Who reports ‘Medium / Poor’ rather than admit inaccurate information, assessment, or judgement of a landing on a ‘Poor’ runway.
PIREPS are more of a hazard than a help, they provide little if any aid to the braking action and are a strong bias on judgement, as can be airfield and wind reports, - we hear what we wish to hear, we consider ‘how can we do this’ vs ‘should we be doing this’.

It’s time for the industry to reconsider the delicate balance of commerce vs safety, the apparent acceptance greater risks in US operations.
It’s time to stop and think about the safety issues particularly those where regulators and operators can intervene, but more often rely on the crew as safety margins reduce, and if transgressed then blamed.

Intrance
8th Mar 2015, 12:44
The point that needs to be made is that current regulations, immigration and airline policy reward or at least encourage passengers to take their bags with them in an emergency. Examples I have read on this site over the years include:

1 - A crash landing with no fire (Asiana in SF????) where it took three days to return bags to passengers.

2 - A slide evac where passangers had to wait half a day in the terminal without any food / drinks provided to passengers who did not have any money / cards

Then, what happens when you are some nationality like Chinese or Indian and you land in the US and the plane does burn. Good luck proving anything to immigration!

The fact is if people are punished like this for doing the right thing, then nothing anyone can do will stop them from doing the wrong thing. That is human nature. The solution is to change the systems not just blame the people.This is still an attitude problem. Passports and money/cards can be carried on your person. Then, if you value your clothes/tablet/toothbrush more than your life, or someone else's... That's wrong priorities no matter how you spin it.

Anyway, I agree with a previous poster that this is all worthy of it's own topic instead of here.

AirScotia
8th Mar 2015, 15:11
Alf, I'm glad to see someone discussing the issue of whether the aircraft should have attempted a landing in those conditions. The photos at the scene showed the runway with a noticeable snow covering - I was taken aback that planes would land on that. Unless the conditions had deteriorated sharply between the last landing and the Delta's, previous flights much have encountered the same dodgy conditions.

How does ATC dedide whether the runway has gone beyond an acceptable limit? Is it down mainly to reports from landing aircraft? And is it a matter of professional pride to downplay a hairy moment rather than admit you were briefly terrified?

_Phoenix_
8th Mar 2015, 15:18
Anyone exiting a crashed airliner carrying any item of clothing or hand baggage in their hands should be arrested and charged both with endangering the safety of the other passengers and disregarding the lawful instructions of the crew
This should be told during safety briefing before takeoff and written on safety cards.

Airbus have published performance data based on contaminant depth and now aligns with airport reporting of braking action based on type and depth of contaminant. Many airports have changed to this type of reporting

Reporting of braking efficiency should not be subjective e.g "Medium/poor", it must be regulated based on type and contamination, especially for the types with tail mounted engines due tail-blanking. Also, the reverse thrust vector tends "to straighten" the trajectory, which is good only if it is aligned with runway.

AirScotia
8th Mar 2015, 15:52
Anyone exiting a crashed airliner carrying any item of clothing or hand baggage in their hands should be arrested and charged both with endangering the safety of the other passengers and disregarding the lawful instructions of the crew


The reasons why it's unwise to get hand-baggage from lockers are a) time, b) blocking the aisle, and c) damaging the slides.

However, other characteristics of passengers affect these considerations. Clothes can hamper a person's manoeverability. Burkas, saris, thobes and other long voluminous garments are pretty much designed to catch on things and get in the way when you're clambering over seats, etc. Full-face burkas also reduce the capacity to see where you're going.

Aisles are likely to be blocked by families with young children, trying to get the brood together and shepherd them to the exit. It's still not uncommon for families to find themselves split up and sitting in different bits of the plane, because there aren't enough seats left in a block.

Accessories such as heavily studded belts must be just as good as stiletto heels for ripping slides. Some of the more extreme facial piercings look like they could do an amount of damage.

So do we forbid all passengers to travel unless they're in trousers and sneakers and their hair tied back, with nothing metal sticking out, travelling without children or elderly relatives?

At what point do we just make people strip off and put on orange jumpsuits?

Note: I think it would be sensible for airlines to require passengers to prepare for landing by putting their coats on and having vital documents / medicines in the seat pocket in front of them. But then, most economy seats barely fit a slim person in a t-shirt, never mind a large person in a parka.

philbky
8th Mar 2015, 16:49
Air Scotia, you really have little understanding of just how your ideas may play out.

Imagine the scenario when in an emergency the passengers are told to put on external clothing. Everyone stands up and tries to get into the overheads for coats and jumpers. The aircraft, possibly already in a partly unstable condition, may suddenly become out of trim as people push and shove to get their coats etc, in many cases not in an immediately adjacent bin, thus addingto the problems of the crew.

Then it maybe a landing on water is a possibility so life vests have to be donned. In your world where people can't even find the one hole in a life vest to put it over their heads, how on earth are they going to cope with two requirements, coats and life vests.

Admit it, sitting cosily and happily at your computer your only concern is to exit a crash scenario with everything you took on board. I dare say were you ever in a real evacuation you would be pushing and shoving with the rest to get out and as far away as possible before the situation deteriorated to one of unsurvivability.

sandiego89
8th Mar 2015, 23:24
The wing damage:


Wow, quite a bit of damage to the wing. A write off perhaps? Although it looks repairable, just not sure how much life she had left in her in the first place.

AirScotia
9th Mar 2015, 00:28
Admit it, sitting cosily and happily at your computer your only concern is to exit a crash scenario with everything you took on board. I dare say were you ever in a real evacuation you would be pushing and shoving with the rest to get out and as far away as possible before the situation deteriorated to one of unsurvivability.

Actually, I'm the world's most safety-aware passenger. I drive my family mad making them count the seatbacks, I read the safety card as soon as I sit down, and I personally paid to go on a BA course to learn how to open the emergency doors, go down a slide and get the life vest on (and no matter how much you sneer, many able-bodied intelligent people had problems with that). I carry my documents and inhaler in a plastic pouch which I put in the seat-back pocket. I always have a scarf with me for wrapping round my face in case of smoke. I'm the model passenger.

However, not many travellers are as anal as me, and I fully understand why. They're sold a glossy service, not the idea that they're strapping themselves into a metal tube and allowing two people they don't know - at least one of whom may be barely more qualified than the occupant of seat 22D - to take them 40,000ft into the air. Stop selling the glossy service, and start reminding passengers that they're doing something potentially dangerous, and then they'll maybe start taking safety seriously.

You could stop giving them booze, while you're at it. That's not exactly a message that they might have to pay attention and get zippy, is it?

philbky
9th Mar 2015, 00:55
I think you will find tat most passengers fall into two main categories, the frequent flyer who knows what to expect and the occasional/first time flyer who may well have fallen for the hype.

It is the former that is more likely to be the problem, familiarity breeding contempt, or at least a relaxation of awareness. The infrequent flyer is far more likely to pay attention to the safety card, announcements and be aware of their surroundings.

I generally pay, especially on long haul, either for exit row or twin seats, not for any reason of safety but it is easier to get up for the toilet, to take a walk or just stand for a while without disturbing others. In buying an exit row seat I agree to assist in an emergency, that is why I know the door operations by heart and can don't a life vest blindfold. At going on 68 I'm totally able bodied but the minute I couldn't open an exit door or felt anyway infirm I wouldn't book an exit row seat,yet I have had crew seat people with mobility difficulties next to me and, on one trip from Rio refused to have a woman next to me who was retching when she boarded the aircraft.

philbky
9th Mar 2015, 00:58
Regarding the damage to the aircraft, it isn'just the wing but looking how it ended up it is almost certain the fuselage is distorted which would likely make it a write off. Given the age of the airframe it is certain to be broken up if that is the case.

jugofpropwash
9th Mar 2015, 01:27
As SLF, if I'm in a crash, I'm not going to go digging around in the overhead bins. However, if I have small items under the seat in front of me, I'll probably grab them and take them with me - partly so that they don't become a trip hazard to others.

That said, if the landing was bad enough that the overhead bins came open and items fell into the aisle or on top of passengers, I will take whatever I can carry with me when I exit the plane - regardless of whether it's my stuff or someone else's - just to get it out of the way. However, when I get to the door I'm likely to hurl the items over the edge/out of the way rather than take them down the slide.

philbky
9th Mar 2015, 09:40
jugofpropwash, consider this. When you bend to pick up items from the aisle you have to slow down or stop. That causes an obstruction. When you carry anything like a bag or coat it will both add to your width and slow you down. When you bend over to pick something up you risk being trampled to the floor in the panic to evacuate, especially in smoke.

Throwing stuff out of the door is crazy. You don't know where it will land, you will have to pause, even momentarily to throw the item so you can try to avoid hitting anyone or the slide.

If items have fallen from the overheads into the aisle it is generally quicker to climb over or kick them aside if you can.

The same rule applies on a crashed aircraft as in a burning or bomb threatened building. Your job is to get out as fast and as unencumbered as you can.

Ancient Mariner
9th Mar 2015, 09:53
It seems like some of the posters here believe that people will behave in a rational manner during an emergency.
Some will, some won't, and based on experience professional training helps, but are no guarantee. To put any faith in what passes for a safety briefing or safety card, well good luck.
And to those who predict how they will behave in an emergency, post a report here when you have had one.

SLFplatine
9th Mar 2015, 15:59
Why do some pilots leave the seat belt sign on all the way from JFK to Shannon in calm air?
Because it is an excellent idea to do so if you fall asleep (which many people do on a a long-haul), reason being if there is a sudden altitude drop you will end up smashed against the ceiling.

the airlines and their governing regulators need to get it across to passengers that when they enter an airplane they are entering a survival situation and they need to be prepared.
I can see it now in bold black lettering on your ticket: 'GOVERNMENT WARNING: ...' Right :ugh:

I have flown for 40 years (as a pilot) and as an example, even while deadheading in uniform, I pay attention to the Flight Attendant briefing and I re read the handy information card in the seat pocket ahead of you.
Because you are a professional pilot and certainly well aware of what can go wrong and all of the potential consequences thereof. It would be the extremely rare non-pilot/crew pax which would have that knowledge.

Another round of outrage and angst over passengers acting like idiots in an emergency.
In an unexpected emergency situation which one is not trained for first reactions are purely instinctive; while it would be nice if such were rational and considerate of everyone else that is almost never the case.

Halfnut
9th Mar 2015, 16:38
Delta Crash: Investigators Suspect Possible Brake Problems - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/delta-crash-investigators-suspect-possible-brake-problems-1425852167)

Halfnut
9th Mar 2015, 16:51
This link doesn't require a subscription -

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/delta-jets-brakes-under-scrutiny-235246107.html

philbky
9th Mar 2015, 17:40
Ancient Mariner, you asked for a report. Do you want the one when I had to clear 3000 pop fans, mostly teenage girls, from a wooden building after what the police advised was a credible bomb scare at the height of IRA activity in mainland Britain or the time I had to clear a conference hall, the 200 delegates consisting of government ministers, senior ATC delegates and airline managers from around the world, after smoke and fire alarms were set off?

SLFplatine, If you would change your comment to "it would be the rare passenger......." I would agree with you.

I know plenty of non pilot/crew passengers who are either connected to aviation professionally or are just enthusiasts who are interested in more than number collecting and photography, who are well versed in the technical aspects of flight, meteorology, operations and the causes of accidents and incidents to have a detailed understanding of what may go wrong, myself included.

MotCap
9th Mar 2015, 18:01
let's see ..... you shoot an approach to a snowy icy runway in low visibility, with a quartering tailwind, to a relatively short runway by airline standards, in a aircraft with twin tail mounted engines, and you are surprised when you weather vane the airplane off the runway when you apply reverse thrust? I would proffer that there was probably no problem with the brakes themselves, just the fact there was most likely little to no braking available due to runway conditions.

Spooky 2
9th Mar 2015, 20:21
The latest:


https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/14c0012c06d11fe3

airman1900
9th Mar 2015, 20:30
NTSB Issues Second Update on the Delta Flight 1086 Accident at LaGuardia

Issued 3/9/2015



NTSB Issues Second Update on the Delta Flight 1086 Accident at LaGuardia (http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20150309.aspx)

Capn Bloggs
9th Mar 2015, 23:56
What a feeling, sitting there wide-eyed as you exited stage-left, with nothing you could do about it...

Sailvi767
10th Mar 2015, 02:22
The wind speed at touchdown was reported as 010/020 at 8 knots. Basically a direct light crosswind.

bubbers44
10th Mar 2015, 03:09
The reverse thrust on the MD88 can block out the rudder so rudder control could have been lost when max reverse was applied shortly after touchdown causing the deviation to left as the report indicates. Reducing or removing reverse thrust would once again make rudders effective. This would have been required as soon as the drift to the left began to return to center line of runway. Reverting to manual braking would also help return to centerline with differential braking. RWY 13 of course doesn't give you the luxury of cancelling reverse for long.

Machinbird
10th Mar 2015, 03:42
Anyone know if the MD-80 series can be steered with judicious use of spoilers once the nose wheels are planted? It would probably require deselection of spoilers for braking though, but if braking is nil, it might give some options.

Not an aircraft that I have flown, so just speculating.:confused:

skyhighfallguy
10th Mar 2015, 03:50
spoilers are not for ground steering. machin bird perhaps you can tell me what plane could be steered on the ground with spoilers?

IT has been reported in the NTSB report linked above that the SPOILERS DID NOT< REPEAT NOT DEPLOY AUTOMATICALLY and the F/O Quickly deployed them manually.

We know this can happen when the variety of sensors detecting and interpreting that the plane is on the ground get fooled somehow, so we are ready to deploy the spoilers manually.

AS some of the same things which tell the spoilers to come up are also the same things that might start the auto brakes working, maybe there is a connection? maybe not?

Coming out of reverse like bubbers 44 has mentioned is a well known technique and it is probably better to go off the end of the runway at 40 knots than the side of the runway at 100 knots.

Capn Bloggs
10th Mar 2015, 03:51
I suspect Machinbird is talking about the Reversers. In that case, at least on my little Maddog, asymmetric use of reversers for steering is a big No No.

Machinbird
10th Mar 2015, 04:07
To keep you gents from speculating excessively, remember I'm a tactical guy, and my F-4 could be steered with the spoilers fairly well, which was useful when putting out the drag chute on a slippery runway. (talk about weather cocking)

I'm assuming that the MD-80 series has more than just ailerons for roll control, and the additional surfaces could be used for steering if not being used for slowing down the aircraft. Now if I've made a bad assumption, I'll make these posts of mine go away.:}

Capn Bloggs
10th Mar 2015, 04:24
F-4 could be steered with the spoilers fairly well, which was useful when putting out the drag chute
Mirage 3 same! :ok:

Little Maddog does not have asymmetric spoilers on the ground. Big Maddog probably the same.

westhawk
10th Mar 2015, 04:36
Further evidence from the FDR should answer a few questions regarding the behavior of the braking, spoiler and T/R systems. I say should because I'm not sure that wheel speed and anti-skid valve parameters are monitored by the FDR on an '80s vintage MD-80. Anyone know? If not, then maybe the installed QAR does?

Good point made by bubbers regarding the loss of rudder effectiveness caused by reverse thrust "blanking" which occurs on many tail pylon mounted engine equipped airplanes. Have noted that on all such types I've flown. A left crosswind component of 7 knots doesn't seem like very much, but the "parachute effect" of T/Rs dragging the tail downwind (to the right) and the loss of rudder effectiveness (promoting a weather-vane tendency) combined might create a noticeable left turning tendency. On a slick runway, these factors have contributed to MD-80 landing roll-out directional control difficulties in the past. Good FDR or QAR data may answer those questions.

That must be a horrible feeling when you realize you're going off the runway in spite of all your efforts to prevent it. Anyone who's landed on a slippery runway has probably had their moments of doubt, but actually going off? I sure don't wanna know. Glad it didn't turn out as bad as it could have.

Naali
10th Mar 2015, 04:43
Hi Bird, referring to You. Spoilers can not be used differentially at ground mode,so they are more or less just aerodynamic brakes. Drags,if you prefer. And thinking of MD 80,a needlepin where everything happens so far back in there,the whole concept must be thought and adjusted that way. The way i thought of it,was being balanced in the nose of a very delicate mass,bit like being a goose. And so it behaves also on landing,sometimes nice,sometimes not so. Braking actions .40-.30 may be better for personal landings,but as here,i think the guys got just trapped by the circumstances. 80,is no-one`s favourite to skate around with. In slippery runways,it sure is a handful to keep it straight,so i would not find any blame on them. Things just happen,unavoidables when you do something. Incidents,to avoid accidents.

twb3
10th Mar 2015, 06:24
I no longer have access to MD-80 Lamm Schematics, but from memory main gear WOW switch made and main gear wheel spin-up is required to trip auto brakes and auto spoilers ON. Is it possible that the friction at the touchdown point was so low that mainwheel spin-up did not occur?

SKS777FLYER
10th Mar 2015, 06:30
Sure lots of sniping at the bill paying guests aboard aircraft...... Acting sometimes like herds of untrained , ah, ah people and angry so many of the SLF are just so stoopid and unwise in the ways of acting in event of unexpected emergencies.
Don't think I have read comments in the thread by those SLF dummies, reminding the operators that SLF don't ask to be put in unplanned emergency situations that over the years have too often been caused by the operators up front, whether being incompetent on occasion or willfully disregarding SOP's or federal regulation or regulations.
Note, I am not guessing the cause of this latest event or assigning blame

bubbers44
10th Mar 2015, 09:23
TWB, yes WOW and main gear wheel spinup as I recall is required for auto spoiler deployment so was probably why manual deployment was required.

Differential reverse is not taught but once rudder is effective again using more right reverse would have helped stop the drift to left. One of our check airmen told me differential reverse is like stopping a horse and pulling the reins to keep straight so I tried it and it works.

blind pew
10th Mar 2015, 09:32
Yes...had to manually deploy spoilers a couple of times.(lack of wheel spin up).

They are not differential.

Nearly ran off the end of Gottenborg.IIRC...DC9-51..after landing behind an AF bus ...rwy reports good but Bus used lots of reverse which melted the frozen, sanded rwy surface which refroze and gave us a skating rink.
Had to have the engines borescoped....as set emergency reverse at lowish speed...engines surged several times...but am here to tell the tale.

Sampan Angkasa
10th Mar 2015, 11:01
I have to hand it to you guys. A masterful stroke about all the hullabaloo wrt evacuation, bags etc...distracting from the issue of crew and aircraft performance in this incident.:D

Centaurus
10th Mar 2015, 12:26
In the 737 for example, part of the sequence required of actions if going sideways on a slippery runway is to select idle reverse. Much depends on how you select idle reverse. if you inadvertently slam the reverse levers fully down in the haste to get idle reverse, chances are you may go past the idle reverse detent especially if it is worn or ill-defined.

It is quite possible to then finish up with forward thrust because of the time it takes to run the RPM down towards idle. You will easily find yourself with N1 winding down past 45- 55% in forward thrust. This will accelerate the aircraft down the runway when you need to be slowing up.

Ian W
10th Mar 2015, 12:31
In view of all the discussion on bags and evacuation I went through a few of the Youtube recordings of the various airlines safety briefings. Delta did not appear to say anything about baggage and evacuation; the latest United video had the no baggage on evacuation as a ticker running on a bus destination board :rolleyes:; a South West rapper gave one brief --- these safety briefings seem to have been handed over to marketing people to be entertainment / advertising rather than be a safety brief that may save people's lives. All seem to have 'safety is our number one priority' then proceed to show that it is not.

Perhaps it is time to tell airlines that briefing SLF particularly the SLF that need to be told how to do up a lap belt may mean making things a little more formal.

PJ2
10th Mar 2015, 15:38
Ian W...Perhaps it is time to tell airlines that briefing SLF particularly the SLF that need to be told how to do up a lap belt may mean making things a little more formal. Passengers' almost complete absence of situational awareness goes along with wearing flip-flops, T-shirts & shorts when departing for sun destinations from northern airports in mid-winter. I'm not sure what the survival time in -28C weather even with no windchill factor is but an evacuation isn't going to be very comfortable in light shirts with palm trees on them, and flip-flops don't give a lot of protection against sharp metal edges or rough ground just in case things go pear-shaped.

Why ruin the fun?, marketing reasonably says...what are the chances? Well, it works okay until it doesn't. It takes so little effort to take some of the responsibility for one's own safety aboard an aircraft.

safetypee
10th Mar 2015, 17:20
I am surprised that there has not been any comment on post #126 which suggests that the industry is complacent, not taking overruns very seriously.
Are we complacent, more willing to discuss baggage than an accident? What more can operators do to minimise the risks when landing on contaminated runways.

Does anyone have details of the prelanding distance calculations which the crew should have referenced; or do they use dispatch data?
What are the recommended crosswind values for various levels of contamination – MD80?
Although the runway is shorter than normal, non-contaminated landing distances should be well within the distance available without using reverse (Ops Requirement). Credit for reverse might only be considered when operating on contaminated runway with special provisions – EU Operations; what is the US case, what provisions?

What was the air temp, dew point difference? (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/20120801OperationsOnContaminatedRunways.pdf Appx 1)

PJ2
10th Mar 2015, 17:43
safetypee, the baggage diversion was a b-session while we wait. I think most have been waiting for some data to see what the actual problem was - whether associated with the braking system itself, the initial absence of spoiler deployment/subsequent deployment by the F/O, and perhaps why JBI (or CRFI) or whatever it is called now, wasn't available to the crew because braking action reports in such conditions are contextual and may not apply to one's own airplane.

I believe once airborne the actual landing distance required is the calculation that is done and as you know those in-flight Advisory performance charts provide numbers for braking action, WAT conditions, wind, reversers etc.

And this was an excursion off the side and not off the end, so something other than runway distance required/availabe was at work perhaps?

Machaca
10th Mar 2015, 17:53
Reuters reports (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/09/us-usa-new-york-airport-idUSKBN0M525B20150309):


Flight crew cite brake problem in Delta NYC accident: NTSB

A brake problem may have caused a Delta Air Lines Inc jet to skid off a runway at New York's LaGuardia Airport last week, according to testimony from the flight's crew, federal safety investigators said Monday.

The auto brakes were set to "max," but the crew "did not sense any wheel brake deceleration" before the plane crashed into a fence, the National Transportation Safety Board said in a statement. It added that the brake switch was found in the "max" position during the investigation.

"The captain reported that he was unable to prevent the airplane from drifting left," the agency said, confirming earlier media reports. The Boeing Co MD-88 aircraft stopped just feet from the icy waters of Flushing Bay, its left wing and other parts damaged but no passengers seriously injured.

"Investigators with the Airworthiness group will continue to examine and test the antiskid, autobrake and thrust reverser systems today," it added.

Another MD-88 aircraft operated by Delta landed on the same runway 3 minutes prior to the plane that crashed, the crew of which described the braking action on the runway as "good," the agency said.

Still, the National Transportation Safety Board said it is examining the weather conditions at the time of the accident.

safetypee
10th Mar 2015, 21:22
PJ, you are seeking ‘runway braking action’; aren’t we all.

One of the issues in discussion (including reverse) involves the differences between Europe and the US.
Europe openly recognises that operations on contaminated runways involve increased risk and thus if these operations are to be conducted regularly some additional mitigation is required. If reverse is to be included then consider ‘what if’ it fails – perhaps less margin in speed, touchdown point being allowed, more GA minded.
The US apparently accepts contaminated operations as routine, or a necessity due to other limitations in the ATC / runway infrastructure. The chosen margin over ‘actual’ landing performance might only be the minimum 15%, which has been discussed elsewhere; ‘actual+15%’ might only be a better representation of what is actually achievable in routine operations, with everything working; thus in reality there is no margin.

Yes a runway excursion vice overrun, but there is a hint of complacency with thoughts of EAMS; these are to mitigate aspects of a landing which should have already have been allowed for, not an aspect of routine operations – “we don’t need more than 15% because of EMAS”. Of course EMAS has no value once off the pavement.

Did the airport calculate and broadcast braking action as per TALPA … a US inspired system.
If the pictures at #37 are representative of the runway condition – snow, slush, depth greater 1/8in, then the best braking action from TALPA would be ‘Medium’ or more likely ‘Medium Poor’. Then add to that the dew point which identifies increased risk.
Braking action also defines crosswind aspects, thus the reported wind might have been acceptable for ‘Good’, but it could be less so in ‘Medium Poor’ – even less margin for a rear engine aircraft; what mitigations would be considered for these ‘routine’ variations in wind measurment and reporting.

A key item in TALPA is that a PIREP cannot upgrade the braking action, thus a call of ‘Good’ is irrelevant as the preceding reports of "medium, worse at the end ... later said poor" remain unless there is a runway inspection. Are PIREPS considered that way, are all preceding PIREPS passed on to crews – not necessary if TALPA is used.

Ian W
11th Mar 2015, 11:56
Safetypee and PJ

Unfortunately, the aircraft ahead that had good braking action may have produced the poor braking action that the following aircraft experiences by blowing liquid with deicer off the surface and letting fresh snow fall on the water freezing in the wake of the landing aircraft's reverse thrust. Two minutes later there is a skating rink nicely prepped for the next aircraft. :sad:

If a lot of the automatics are predicated by WOW and wheel spin up, then the question has to be asked - what if they don't spin up?

SLFguy
11th Mar 2015, 12:13
Passengers' almost complete absence of situational awareness goes along with wearing flip-flops, T-shirts & shorts when departing for sun destinations from northern airports in mid-winter

But the airline will sell alcohol.. so the rowdy group on a 'stagger' four rows in front of me who were probably half cut on embarkation are ok but my footwear is an issue.

Capi_Cafre'
11th Mar 2015, 16:21
If a lot of the automatics are predicated by WOW and wheel spin up, then the
question has to be asked - what if they don't spin up?


A time interval following WOW is a common solution, and is why a firm touchdown on a contaminated surface is preferred.

CrashManII
11th Mar 2015, 18:27
Unfortunately I've been on two different commercial crashes, so I do have a little different perspective on evacuation proceedings.

The first was SWA Flight 2294 back in 2009 when a football sized hole in the plane blew open in the top of the airplane. Fortunately, when we landed there was no need for an emergency evacuation and they advised us to grab our luggage. However, as I was sitting in an Exit Row, it was surprising the amount of additional information they provided as we were preparing to land. I've flown for over 25 years on business and had never heard some of those--important--instructions.

The 2nd was SWA Flight 345 2 years ago at LGA. In this case, we had no warning until we hit and skidded to a stop. It was shortly after the Asiana crash so it was fresh in our memories. As I was sitting in an exit row, I was waiting for crew instructions--none came. If you watch the in-plane flight Youtube clip, you will hear me ask, (as calmly as possible to not cause concern,) "do you want us to open the exit doors?" I asked it twice, no reply until we were told to take our seats.

As passengers, when you receive no guidance and you start to smell smoke, it was terribly upsetting. However, although great concern by all, I did not sense any real panic. We simply wanted to get off the plane, it took several minutes before they provided any instructions other than to sit down. At that point, individuals started to pick up their briefcases, computer bags or purses. I did not see anyone trying to get a rolling bag or anything of any size.

I'm a big man and went out the back slide which was elevated more than normal due to the nose of the plane tilting on the ground. My computer bag, clasped firmly in my arms on my chest, caused no problem.

I've read the criticism by others about this "selfish" act and how they would run someone over. No-you wouldn't. You might be surprised at how disciplined people can be even when scared to death. (That said, had we seen flames I don't think anyone would have grabbed anything, just get out. I was sitting beside the exit door on the raised wing, if it had gotten urgent, I was prepared to throw the door out and jump to the ground. Survival is more important than a rolled ankle.)

skyhighfallguy
11th Mar 2015, 18:34
crashguyII

have you rethought your choice in airlines?

Doors to Automatic
11th Mar 2015, 19:08
Or your choice of transport mode :p

Lonewolf_50
11th Mar 2015, 20:54
Crashman, please don't spoil the groupthink of "airline professionals."
You'll upset someone. :cool:

enola-gay
11th Mar 2015, 21:44
CrashMan II


First hand and first class account of reality, rather than the pompous "commander control" which has prevailed from the procedure Jonnies on this thread.


I have only experienced one Bolko helicopter crash landing and one "bomb emergency" landing/evacuation in a BAC 1-11, and I would agree with your observations.


The pilot of the helicopter and the crew of the 1-11 were not the best source of reliable information to make an exit decision. Passengers can see risk unfold and act accordingly.

skyhighfallguy
17th Mar 2015, 00:47
we have a word or phrase for passengers deciding to evacuate on their own.

uncommanded evacuation, or passenger initiated evacuation.

RARELY, is it the right thing to do. AND it can lead to more injuries than you might imagine.

I DO HOPE we can get back to the cause of the excursion. And analysis of the report issued by the NTSB on march 9.

FlightlessParrot
17th Mar 2015, 04:10
@IanW
Perhaps it is time to tell airlines that briefing SLF particularly the SLF that need to be told how to do up a lap belt may mean making things a little more formal.

I value your posts, but I think you may be wrongly blaming marketing, here. Think of the last time you sat through a "formal" safety briefing: how many pax were attending? Mostly people who could quote it all, anyway, I suspect. Now sit through a cheesy Air NZ briefing (my favourite is the Richard Simmonds aerobics one): quite a lot of people watch. It's the same principle as a workshop putting a pin-up next to the safety poster: before the people will pay attention to a warning, they have to have seen it. Some methods of attracting attention are no longer acceptable (and I understand why), but pax haven't signed on to join a disciplined service, and while we all ought to behave and co-operate, there's no requirement for formality. The warning about not taking bags should be more emphasised, I agree (Now listen up, you mo-fos, no mo-foing bags).

mnttech
17th Mar 2015, 11:04
For US Carriers:
§121.571 Briefing passengers before takeoff. (the thinned down version)
(a) Each certificate holder operating a passenger-carrying airplane shall insure that all passengers are orally briefed by the appropriate crewmember as follows:
(1) Before each takeoff, on each of the following:
(i) Smoking.
(ii) The location of emergency exits.
(iii) The use of safety belts,
(b) Each certificate holder must carry on each passenger-carrying airplane, in convenient locations for use of each passenger, printed cards supplementing the oral briefing. Each card must contain information pertinent only to the type and model of airplane used for that flight, including—
(1) Diagrams of, and methods of operating, the emergency exits;
(2) Other instructions necessary for use of emergency equipment; and
(3) No later than June 12, 2005, for Domestic and Flag scheduled passenger-carrying flights, the sentence, “Final assembly of this airplane was completed in [INSERT NAME OF COUNTRY].”

So there is not a requirement to inform the SLF to leave everything behind. Airline X probably does not want to add it, because it might scare the pax to Airline Y. Not sure about other countries, but probably something along the same lines.:ugh:

bubbers44
17th Mar 2015, 13:51
Braking action may have had a part in leaving the runway with half the runway remaining because of lack of differential braking to remain straight either by not overriding max braking setting to return to normal brakes or not being able to get adequate braking on the right main gear.

Rudder blanking because of max reverse thrust on the tail mounted engines also could cause the drift left with the 10 knot left crosswind. Reducing reverse should have restored rudder effectiveness. The CVR and FDR info should explain why they didn't regain directional control.

skyhighfallguy
17th Mar 2015, 19:25
bubbers is right of course. I just exchanged E mail with a rep of the NTSB and he says nothing is scheduled in the way of a second report any time soon.


IT is vital with all contaminated runway operations to establish and maintain directional control as your first duty. It is better to run off the end of the runway (in this case to a short EMAS over run) a bit too fast, than off the side out of control.

I would like to know much more before commenting, but if you give up flying the plane with stick and rudder and just hope for the best with brakes and steering, good luck.

hbomb
18th Mar 2015, 04:27
shfg Can you provide some evidence please for the assertions in post #175?

skyhighfallguy
18th Mar 2015, 04:55
sorry, it is info from our training department.

especially worisome though is evacuation without coordination with pilots in the case of under wing mounted engines.

in other words, the guys who pay me say don' t let pax jump out on their own.

CrashManII
18th Mar 2015, 15:18
Agree completely. But we were getting no instructions other than, "please return to your seats we are not at the gate" which was a little odd. And, the way we hit, we had no way of knowing whether or not the pilots were conscious. We were waiting for guidance and didn't get any for a few minutes. Once the smell of smoke started working the way through the plane, it only heightened concerns. To this day, I still don't know whether either of the pilots issued a command or statement. There certainly was no, "this is the pilot, ...."

The gentleman on the opposite side of the plane to me opened his exit door and was subsequently told to shut it, (as they were spraying down the plane.) The front left exit door popped open upon landing on its own.

Bottom line, at some point you have to start thinking about options--and one of mine was to open my exit row and.....exit. But that would have only happened if things had gotten significantly worse and we still weren't getting guidance.

skyhighfallguy
19th Mar 2015, 20:15
to those involved with the lga southwest deal. did you report the lack of leadership to the ntsb?

The captain should make the decisions based upon all available facts. Sometimes the captain does not get all the information, or gets it wrong.

but for the average passenger, just jumping out of a plane on the runway or taxiway (we don't make our airports with tarmac here) is pretty dumb.

BUT if you do have special information like: can't stay in my seat with my seatbelt fastened because my seat has fallen through the bottom of the plane, do call it to the captain's attention.

david1300
20th Mar 2015, 10:16
...
BUT if you do have special information like: can't stay in my seat with my seatbelt fastened because my seat has fallen through the bottom of the plane, do call it to the captain's attention.

Are you serious? When we have evidence of the Captain in an above case ignoring the cabin crew, not just once, and the control tower?

Using your example above, should I climb back into the cabin (from the hold, where I've fallen), or just yell from where I am?

I can understand the reluctance by the captain to call an evacuation, but how much more info did the captain need in the example a few posts back?

RatherBeFlying
20th Mar 2015, 16:21
The flight crew in an incident or accident have a human tendency to believe things are not as bad as they really are.

If they are able to taxi, the assumption is: It can't be that bad -- lets work through the SOPs.

It seems in the delayed evacuation cases mentioned that the SOPs have left out monitoring the cabin for smoke:=

IGh
21st Mar 2015, 17:45
From slot above:
... flight crew in an incident or accident have a human tendency to believe things are not as bad . . . the assumption is: It can't be that bad -- lets work through . . .In other threads there are records of the INVESTIGATOR-err (http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/489479-bias-independent-investigating-authority.html#post7295670), due to the investigators' mistaken mental-model [false narrative, erroneous hypothesis, patriotic-protectionism]. And most recently at USA's CSB:US Chemical Safety Board (CSB) In Turmoil (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/03/us-chemical-safety-board-turmoil)
Testimony: March-2015 (http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/rebuilding-chemical-safety-board-finding-solution-csbs-governance-management-challenges/)
In various cases of smoke-fire (on ground and inflight), the pilots' mistaken mental-model (from the misleading smoke-stream) took pilots to the WRONG CHECKLIST (Electrical Fire _v_ Cargo Smoke).

Since this thread is about a mishap at LGA, & other comments about that earlier B737 Nose Landing Gear failure at LGA:

There were two cases during the summer of 1964, where the mishap-pilots' misperceived a MLG separation (mistakenly as a tire-failure, or nothing-at-all).

Northeast Airlines 715 / 5Jun64 (http://dotlibrary.specialcollection.net/Home) DC-6B, N8221H, approach to LGA Rwy31 impacted dike prior to threshold; Rt MLG separated. . . . CAB's AAR pg-3:
As the aircraft passed over the water retaining dike located ahead of the runway threshold a "thump" was heard or felt by the crew. With regard to this occurrence, the captain stated,
" . . . there was no change of any sort other than the thump, either the sound or the feeling -- I believe it was feeling probably more than sound . . . I was aware that the aircraft had struck something. I was quite surprised, and the first officer made the statement that, 'I think we might have blown a tire'
. . . after we were in what I was considering the landing, and I thought the gear was still with us . . . "And two months later:
TWA91 / 26Aug64 B707-331C N787TW (http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=79412&key=0), Capt Hogan, landing Kansas City downtown, MKC, Both MLG sheared off by impact with Dike…. This case was reviewed regularly during recurrent training for decades after:those mishap-pilots attempted to taxi their B707, not realizing that their airliner was belly-on-the-concrete.
Various instructors would recite the old story: The pilots didn’t begin to recognize the real problem until passengers had exited, then around to the cockpit side-window … No AAR(an “incident”). No details about the post accident misperceptions (unaware MLG had separated).
[UMKC archives, Box 157 (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/162103644/_TWA_-Records---University-of-Missouri---Kansas-City) (index on p36), Folder, Incident – August 26, 1964 (1), and (2), Kansas City, MO –- FLT 91 Capt. Hogan.]

Zeffy
3rd Apr 2015, 00:01
NTSB Issues Third Update on the Delta Flight 1086 Accident at LaGuardia (http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20150402b.aspx)

NTSB Issues Third Update on the Delta Flight 1086 Accident at LaGuardia
4/2/2015

​As part of its ongoing investigation into the March 5, 2015 accident at LaGuardia Airport where Delta Air Lines flight 1086 veered off the runway shortly after touching down, the NTSB today released its third investigative update.

At about 11:02 a.m., the Boeing MD-88, flying from Atlanta, GA to New York, NY, exited the left side of runway 13, struck a perimeter fence with its left wing, and came to rest with its nose on an embankment. There were 127 passengers on the aircraft, including two infants carried on adults’ laps, as well as five crewmembers. Twenty-three passengers suffered minor injuries.

The NTSB has formed two additional investigative groups that will investigate Airport Operations and Survival Factors. Existing groups include Operations and Human Performance, Airplane Performance, Flight Data Recorder, Cockpit Voice Recorder, and Maintenance Records.

The Airport Operations group will document the snow-clearing plan in place at LaGuardia Airport and document snow clearing operations the day of the accident. Thus far, the group was provided information indicating that runway 13 was cleared approximately 20-25 minutes prior to the accident.

The Survival Factors group will document the cabin safety aspects of the accident, and the emergency evacuation of the accident airplane.

Other updates include:

• The Airworthiness group has completed its initial examination of the accident airplane. Several components have been removed from the accident airplane for further examination and testing. At this point, no pre-impact anomalies have been noted in the airplane structure, spoilers, thrust reversers, or braking system.
• The Operations group has found that four airplanes landed on runway 13 between the conclusion of snow-clearing operations at about 10:40 local time and the accident flight. It also determined that the airplane that landed three minutes before the accident flight was another Delta MD-88 airplane. The group has interviewed or obtained statements from all four flight crews. The group reviewed the Delta MD-88 pilot operational materials and found guidance to limit reverse engine pressure ratios (EPR) to 1.3 on contaminated runways.
• The Airplane Performance group continues to examine data from the FDR, ATC radar, weather, and ground scar information to determine the timeline of aircraft motion, pilot control inputs and forces acting on the airplane. Based on a preliminary readout and examination of the FDR data from the Flight Data Recorder group and preliminary calculations from the Airplane Performance group:

o The airplane was aligned with the runway centerline during the approach to the runway.
o The autopilot was engaged until the airplane was about 230 feet above the ground.
o The airspeed during the final approach was about 140 knots.
o The main landing gear touched down close to the runway centerline, at a speed of about 133 knots.
o Two seconds after main gear touchdown both thrust reversers were deployed and engines began advancing in power.
o The spoilers were fully deployed within 2.5 seconds after main gear touchdown.
o The nose gear touched down and brake pressure began to rise in a manner consistent with autobrake application 2.8 seconds after the main gear touchdown.
o About six seconds after main gear touchdown, the airplane’s heading began to diverge to the left. At this point, both the left and right engine EPR were about 1.9 with the reversers still deployed.
o The engines reached peak recorded reverse thrust of 2.07 EPR on the left, and 1.91 EPR on the right, between six and seven seconds after touchdown. Engine thrust decreased after this point.
o The thrust reversers were stowed nine seconds after main gear touchdown when the engines were both at about 1.6 EPR.
o The airplane departed the left side of the runway approximately 14 seconds after main gear touchdown.

The investigation is ongoing and any future updates will be issued as events warrant. For the latest, follow the investigation on Twitter at @NTSB or on our website at ntsb.gov.

skyhighfallguy
3rd Apr 2015, 00:36
Dear ZEFFY

thanks for posting!

The MD80 series should have its nose wheel on the ground PRIOR to selecting thrust reverse.

Overboosting on thrust reverse and, LEFT engine putting out more power than Right, which would pull the plane to the LEFT, which is what happened. Though the timing might be slightly off. Rereading this shows the heading change at six seconds with the assymetric reverse at six to seven seconds, but close.

This may also give credence to the rudder blanking at high thrust reverse.

THINGS they should have done.

Delayed thrust reverse until nosewheel on ground and directional control established
Select thrust reverse at 1.3 epr instead of 1.9 to 2.07.



Sounds like a big OOOOPS in the front end of the plane.

737er
3rd Apr 2015, 00:48
The plane didn't begin to verge left until 3 seconds after the nose wheel came down.

The EPR difference was relatively insignificant. The runway had to be much slicker than reported.

skyhighfallguy
3rd Apr 2015, 01:04
737er

i think it is significant

and rudder blanking happens above 1.3 epr.

golfyankeesierra
3rd Apr 2015, 01:09
So when you need it the most, it's not so useful.. (on the contrary)..

skyhighfallguy
3rd Apr 2015, 01:13
it is useful but must be judicially used, esp in compliance with pilot ops manual

737er
3rd Apr 2015, 03:17
skyhighfallguy

Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: yankton, sd
Posts: 142
737er

i think it is significant

and rudder blanking happens above 1.3 epr.




Admittedly I am unfamiliar to with which the degree that would be a factor on an MD-80.

skyhighfallguy
3rd Apr 2015, 03:19
no worries friend

I think all transport pilots know that directional control on landing may even trump early and aggressive use of thrust reverse.

better to go off the end at 40 knots than the side at 100 knots eh?

737er
3rd Apr 2015, 05:06
Well correct and true for the jets I have flown with the caveat that it takes a darn slick runway to get a high speed loss of directional control going based on reverse thrust application. But yes, if that occurs you decrease reverse thrust to regain controllability.

For example, an MEL'd TR would be allowable for many jets with a wet runway braking action good report. Also, you can honk in a full helping of reverse on a single engine landing and have zero directional control issues with wet-good runway on evey jet I've flown. ( but I've not flown the mad dog)

I think what we are talking about here is both. I think the rudder blockage issue sounds like its a serious factor on the MD and that runway was slipppery as snot, probably more than the breaking action report provided.

JammedStab
3rd Apr 2015, 08:43
Admittedly I am unfamiliar to with which the degree that would be a factor on an MD-80.

AA MD-80 Little Rock...bad accident.

The National Transportation Safety Board determined that the probable causes of this accident were the flight crew’s failure to discontinue the approach when severe thunderstorms and their associated hazards to flight operations had moved into the airport area and the crew’s failure to ensure that the spoilers had extended after touchdown.

Contributing to the accident were the flight crew’s (1) impaired performance resulting from fatigue and the situational stress associated with the intent to land under the circumstances, (2) continuation of the approach to a landing when the company’s maximum crosswind component was exceeded, and (3) use of reverse thrust greater than 1.3 engine pressure ratio (EPR) after landing.

http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A01_49_70.pdf

JammedStab
3rd Apr 2015, 08:57
Recommendation from a 1980 test flight accident:

Incorporate the following information into the DC-9-80 training manuals
and training programs under the flight control and landing sections:

When thrust reversers (located just forward of the vertical stabilizer) are used during landing rollout, the exhaust gases from the engines are deflected by the thrust reverser buckets in such a manner that the free-stream airflow over the vertical stabilizer and rudder is blocked, reducing the
effectiveness of these surfaces. At a nominal airspeed of 100 KIAS, the reduction in rudder effectiveness with increasing symmetric reverse thrust levels is shown below.

Engine Thrust Setting Max Rudder Effectiveness available(%)
Forward Idle 100
Reverse Idle 65
1.3 EPR (Reverse) 25
1.6 EPR (Reverse) minimal

Rudder effectiveness also decreases with decreasing airspeed. On a dry runway, directional control is easily maintained by differential antiskid braking and nosewheel steering.

However, under adverse conditions such as a slippery runway with rain, snow, or ice, when crosswinds reduce the braking effectiveness of the gear on the upwind wing, or when a high speed landing is made with both hydraulics systems out (i.e., flaps/slats retracted, ground spoilers, rudder hydraulic boost, nosewheel steering all rendered inoperative, and brake
antiskid systems limited by hydraulic accumulator pressure), the vertical stabilizer and rudder will be the primary source of directional stability and control during the high speed portion of the landing rollout. Under these conditions, it is important to make allowance for the adverse effects of reverse thrust on the effectiveness of the vertical stabilizer and rudder.

http://www.fss.aero/accident-reports/dvdfiles/US/1980-06-19-US.pdf

Halfnut
3rd Apr 2015, 15:20
NTSB Issues Third Update on the Delta Flight 1086 Accident at LaGuardia (http://ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20150402b.aspx)

bubbers44
3rd Apr 2015, 16:04
2.07 L reverse and 1.97 R reverse would explain leaving the runway with rudder blanking at high reverse thrust and minimal nose wheel steering with full right rudder.

Reducing left reverse thrust when drift started to the left would have straightened the horse out using the stopping the horse with reins technique.

Halfnut
3rd Apr 2015, 16:25
....then they added 1.6 EPR of forward thrust to the equation.

stilton
4th Apr 2015, 07:27
If you start to lose directional control on landing in an MD80 you don't piss about trying to modulate differential reverse thrust that will just get you in more trouble.


You CANCEL reverse immediately to stop the rudder blanking and get on the brakes, reapply reverse carefully if control is established and you need it.


I flew it for four years and we never used that much reverse thrust on a contaminated runway, we all knew that would get you in trouble.

bubbers44
4th Apr 2015, 12:03
So if you pull in too much left reverser and are headed for the left edge of runway you wouldn't piss away your time removing the force that is putting you there. You would cancel all reverse and use braking on an icy runway to regain directional control and stop?

Why not correct the improper reverse usage immediately? Yes, it would be better to use proper reversers to start with but they were already past that stage. If differential reverse usage is so confusing just practice it once in a while on a dry runway until it isn't. That's what us old school guys did and it ain't that hard.

skyhighfallguy
4th Apr 2015, 12:15
bubbers 44

the idea of reins of a horse is brilliant

getting use to the idea of pulling back on the TR levers and say WHOA and then if you are not stopping straight pull to the side you want to go to.


other should remember this and also the idea of using normal thrust to steer plane in aerodynamic control emergency in flight

Zeffy
4th Apr 2015, 12:34
The NTSB report (http://www.fss.aero/accident-reports/dvdfiles/US/1980-06-19-US.pdf) cited by JammedStab referred to a 1980 flight test accident that occurred while validating the abnormal procedure for loss of hydraulics.

However changes to T/R operation were expanded to include normal landings:


http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/MD-80%20tr%20procedure_zps9trfszij.png (http://s202.photobucket.com/user/zeffy_bucket/media/MD-80%20tr%20procedure_zps9trfszij.png.html)


When did FAA/Boeing/McD change the procedure to permit the use asymmetric reverse?

skyhighfallguy
5th Apr 2015, 01:40
so, in other words

the md88 crew didn't have the nose gear on the ground, did not go to idle reverse and verify and then go to 1.6 epr max

no need to talk about using assymetric reverse for anything, but they put the deployment of reverse OVER AND ABOVE directional control.

this of course is wrong.

ON the early DC9s, you could put reverse out before nose wheel was on ground. THE MAIN reason the 80 series didn't do this is the reversers would scrape the runway with the nose wheel too far off the runway.

stilton
5th Apr 2015, 06:28
'Bubber's' read what Zeffy posted.


That sums it up.

bubbers44
5th Apr 2015, 09:41
Zeffy's simplified use of reverse to maintain directional control would work most of the time if they never used assymetrical reverse to get into that situation in the first place. When the deviation first occured it could have easily been stopped by reducing left reverse immediately followed by reduction of all reverse until rudder control was reestablished. Now you are still on the runway, not off the side waiting for rudder effectiveness to return.

skyhighfallguy
5th Apr 2015, 14:22
Naturally, if normal directional control, in accordance with the flight manual, is working, use it.

But if you are out of control, and normal directional control is not working, you have to be able to at least consider the use of assymetric thrust. reverse or otherwise.

I recall the explanation for the information about not using assymetric reverse thrust from our director of training. Quite simply, if you are not good at it, it won't go well. There is a real "TOUCH" to using thrust reverse. The idea of thinking of it like the reins of a horse is excellent. But if you are not adapt at it, you will make things worse. So think about it, try it in the sim, get your mind working on the REIN thing and you will have an additional tool to keep your plane safe.

I DO WONDER which pilot was flying? Quite frankly, if you are right handed, it is easier to use the throttles, reverse levers with the right hand (as if you are captain), than using your left hand,(as if you are copilot)

IF I had to bet, I would bet the copilot was flying. But if anyone knows who was really flying I would be interested in finding out.

stilton
6th Apr 2015, 03:56
Don't know about 'reining in horses' but I do believe in following the flight manual.


In four years of flying the MD80 I never had a directional 'issue' like this one but we never used that much reverse, especially on a contaminated runway.


When you start talking about manipulating reverse to straighten out an aircraft that's starting to go sideways you're kidding yourself.


The reason you're having this problem is because of rudder blanking, this is what you need to eliminate immediately.


That's why the manufacturer recommends reducing reverse immediately and that's what you should do.

ManaAdaSystem
6th Apr 2015, 13:57
When you start talking about manipulating reverse to straighten out an aircraft that's starting to go sideways you're kidding yourself.

Spot on!
You don't horse around with the reversers on the MD 80.

MD80767 Driver
6th Apr 2015, 17:13
Fast Cruiser, MD80 evacuation checklist contains ; "Spoilers retract"

flyingchanges
6th Apr 2015, 17:24
Is not the reverser still going to blank out the rudder in the direction you need to go?

skyhighfallguy
6th Apr 2015, 18:49
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The plane in question went to the left.

The thrust reverse was assymetric.

Therefore assymetric reverse will provide directional control

HOWEVER, it might have worked out better in this situation to use more reverse on the right than the left.

Assymetric thrust in many situations can help you. YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHEN AND WHERE to use it.

Sioux City, assymetric forward thrust allowed for some steering to a disabled plane and allowed some survivors!

In a rudder hardover, if you cannot control things with the book procedures, different thrust levels could provide some degree of control.

IN a landing situation , if the conventional aerodynamic controls are not sufficient, if nosewheel steering is not sufficient, then at least consider steering with reverse thrust as a possible solution.

DO we go around the country steering the plane with assymetric thrust? NOPE. IT is something to keep in your bag of tricks, in your skill set if you will, to be used when the fecal matter hits the oscillating ventilator .

Zeffy
6th Apr 2015, 19:39
Why on earth would anyone want a serving of that pudding? :ugh:

FAA and the manufacturer both caution against the use of excessive reverse thrust due to rudder blanking.

Why would a pilot want to nullify the effectiveness of a primary aerodynamic control with improper (per the guidance of both the mfg and the FAA) application of reverse thrust?

And subsequently try to use more of the same ill-advised technique to salvage the self-induced situation?

The preceding aircraft (landing 3 minutes earlier than the accident airplane) was also an MD-88 operated by the same carrier. They landed safely.

Would there be any "pudding" to be derived from that information?

skyhighfallguy
6th Apr 2015, 22:09
zeffy, apparently you don't get it.

I AM SAYING the guys made a mistake, they didn't follow the procedures, 1.3 epr etc.


BUT ONCE you are out of control why not try to salvage it?

IF you had landed on centerline, on speed, gotten nose wheel on the ground and went to 1.3 epr and then lost control, cancelled reverse and you were still headed for disaster would you:

1. Attempt assymetric thrust to regain control

2. give up and go along for the ride


I AM not saying land and fool around with reverse thrust assymetry

I AM SAYING land and maintain directional control, but if that fails you might try what I've been talking about.

Gillegan
6th Apr 2015, 23:42
I love it. Pilots that know MORE than the manufacturers who designed and built the airplane.

I'm not sure if this is what happened at LGA but anytime you get the airplane out of alignment with the centerline on a contaminated runway, you have a component of that reverse thrust that is directly pushing the aircraft off the side of the runway. If there is a crosswind and the aircraft has weathervaned, that reverse thrust is just going to make it worse - whether it is applied asymmetrically or not. That is why it is not recommended to try to salvage the situation with asymmetric reverse thrust.

skyhighfallguy
7th Apr 2015, 00:13
I love it, people on pprune who don't understand english.

stilton
7th Apr 2015, 09:47
Amazing that the SPECIFIC manufacturers recommendations are being second guessed by people who have probably never flown the MD80.


Even if rudder blanking wasn't the main culprit here the difference in epr was not that significant, furthermore we're not dealing with wing mounted engines that have a lot of asymmetric affect to either contribute to or 'recover from' the sideways drift.


If you start going sideways you reduce or cancel reverse, that's what MD recommends , they were right and for a good reason, its far more important to get the rudder in clean air and working again than monkeying around with asymmetric reverse, that will just get you in more trouble.

bubbers44
7th Apr 2015, 12:48
As previously stated, manipulating reverse thrust can bite you. The manufacturer doesn't want to share any liability for improper use so simply says to cancel reverse thrust for directional control problems. Aviation today is made as simple as possible so low time pilots can pass their check rides and get in the right seat as soon and as cheaply as possible.

Learning the finer points of piloting comes with experience and hopefully someone who will share with you what he has learned.

An olympic figure skating champion doesn't get there by reading the manual on how to use her skates, does she?

Zeffy
7th Apr 2015, 16:08
...Learning the finer points of piloting comes with experience and hopefully someone who will share with you what he has learned.

So, at what point in a pilot's career does s/he attain the professional standing to disregard operating advice from the certification authorities and manufacturers?

Does the carrier issue a frame-able "maximum supreme aviation yoda" certificate? -- or are other methods/credentials used to provide dispensation from published crew operating guidance?

And how does testing or experimenting with the use of asymmetric reverse in MD-80 series on dry pavement prove that the technique will work just fine when the surface is slick?

Aluminium shuffler
7th Apr 2015, 16:29
Ironic that the guys advocating the asymmetric reverse thrust in direct contravention of all guidance from companies, manufacturers and other specialists, make comparison to using reigns. Confessions of a cowboy...

skyhighfallguy
7th Apr 2015, 18:35
zeffy, I don't have my MEL list handy. Since you probably do, why not look it up?

Can you dispatch an MD80 with one thrust reverser inop?

Does the MEL indicate that BOTH reversers must be made inop by wiring both reverse levers closed or allow one reverser to be used and if so what limits?


Dear Aluminum Shuffler. Would you classify the Sioux City crash as cowboying, or improvising in an odd situation? They used differential/assymetric thrust didn't they?

There is so much misunderstanding of the art of flying, which is largely done with the mind. Bubbers indicated thinking of the reversers as the reins of a horse is a way of THINKING. It would be very nice if people started THINKING and actually reading things.

Simple question: if you were in trouble and could not control the plane with conventional methods, would you try differential/assymetric thrust, or just give up?

ECAM_Actions
8th Apr 2015, 00:25
I've never seen it written or said that you can't use asymmetric reverse thrust. The only guidance I have seen is that it may "make directional control difficult", but if you're attempting to use it to re-gain directional control, that could be a bad idea (thrust changes don't happen immediately), unless loss of control in attempting to stop is preferable to not trying...

The reason reverse thrusters get locked out is to prevent inadvertent deployment in flight.

stilton
8th Apr 2015, 00:43
When I flew the MD80 we could dispatch with one reverser inop per our MEL.


The restriction was 'idle reverse only'


There is no 'experience waiver' for manufacturers operation
recommendations !


If you disregard them you have become a test pilot and opened yourself up to unlimited liability.

skyhighfallguy
8th Apr 2015, 01:19
stilton and others

thanks for the MEL confirmation you can go with one TR inop.

And that you can use idle reverse.

IDLE reverse on one side and forward thrust on the other side is assymetric.


hmmmmmmm

stilton
8th Apr 2015, 03:12
You must be 'Skyhigh' if you think that idle reverse on one side has any significant asymmetric affect.


You have no idea what you're talking about.

bubbers44
8th Apr 2015, 03:12
Landed a 757 on a short runway in the mountains in Central America one day and only the right reverser deployed so used it normally with no problem staying on centerline with a bit of opposite rudder.

Of course if it was icy the plane would have turned in the direction of the reversing engine so I would have had to reduce or cancel reverse because the rudder couldn't compensate for the reverse at lower speeds.

Amazing how that works.

skyhighfallguy
8th Apr 2015, 03:33
stilton

forward idle, reverse idle= assymetric.

ask an engineer (not a mechanic)

gotcha stilton. gee, stilton, that's a smelly cheese right?

And I don't know what I'm talking about? Well, then how did I know what the answer was for the MEL'ing of a thrust reverser .

Capn Bloggs
8th Apr 2015, 06:39
forward idle, reverse idle= assymetric.

Knock it off, stilton didn't say it was not asymmetric, he talked about the "significant asymmetric effect". Big difference.

PT6Driver
8th Apr 2015, 08:12
Sky
What several posters are pointing out is that there is specific authorised information about the use of reverse, the idea that one should use asymmetric reverse to regain directional control is contrary to that.
The mel item allows one reverse inop. It does not mean that you would play around trying to stear using asymmetric power! Further the manuals clearly state if directional control is lost to cancel reverse, this will apply whether one TR is inop or not.
You qoute Sioux City as part of your defence.....WTF? That is clearly not the same.:ugh: and has no relevance to this incident.
You accuse others of not reading correctly, perhaps you should take a close look at your own behaviour.

skyhighfallguy
8th Apr 2015, 09:53
Fine. let's do it your way.

go out of control and get out of reverse. fine

then why didn't these guys do that? why didn't they have the nosewheel on the ground prior to selecting reverse?

why was the assymetric reverse thrust successful at pulling the plane to the excursion side?

JammedStab
8th Apr 2015, 10:17
What about reverser use during an RTO just below V1. How about the same on a slippery runway?

Is it idle reverse only?

skyhighfallguy
8th Apr 2015, 18:54
jammed stab

they won't answer. they cannot fathom the ideas expressed here. Your question is quite valid.

Reverse can be used in any way when you need it and CAN MAINTAIN CONTROL>

I have never said use assymetric reverse and LOSE CONTROL.

And if you do lose one engine before V1 or at V1 and elect to reject the takeoff, you deploy both reversers, as they will create drag at the least and can attenuate forward idle. But if you can MAINTAIN control you can use remaining reverse.

Chu Chu
8th Apr 2015, 21:42
This is probably a dumb SLF question, but wouldn't the effect of asymmetric reverse thrust be limited with tail mounted engines?

skyhighfallguy
8th Apr 2015, 22:12
hi chu chu

it is a reasonable question. many factors come into play. One is that the tail mounted engines , when reversers are deployed, interfere with airflow over the rudder, reducing the aerodynamic effectiveness.

But you are right the lever arm is much shorter on a tail mounted engine so it would be less assymetric than a wing mounted engine.

HOWEVER most wing mounted engine planes now a days use higher bypass engines and their thrust reversers are a different type than on the MD80. They are inherently less effective.

So it is an apples or oranges comparison.

I have flown 9 and 737 with the same engines and same types of reversers and that is a better comparison. Prefer the tailmounted engines.

the main topic on this forum seems to be the blanket statement about using assymetric reverse thrust for directional control. IT is tricky to do and you either have the touch or don't and the blanket statement covers those who don't.

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO PUSH FORWARD ON THE CONTROL WHEEL to insure the nosewheel is in firm contact of the runway as it aids in directional control.

IT IS Important to note that the maximum EPR (engine pressure ratio) was exceeded early on in the landing.

sydgrew
9th Apr 2015, 04:41
Returning to Brussels in a 1-11 in the 1970s after one of the engines went bang just as the nose was lifting, we did an interesting zig-zag landing (interesting for passengers such as I). First the good engine revved up (reverse thrust) and we veered off quite sharply to one side (towards one line of fire engines). Then the good engine revved down and the brakes came on (presumably the brakes on the wheels on the other side only) and we veered off towards the line of fire engines on the other side. We turned like this about six times, repeating the same procedure. Question: does every pilot practise such manoeuvres these days?

Ancient Mariner
9th Apr 2015, 05:30
skyhighfallguy:IT is tricky to do and you either have the touch or don't and the blanket statement covers those who don't.
So how do you find out if you do or don't? I'd rather not fly with those who are hell bent on testing out their capabilities.

skyhighfallguy
9th Apr 2015, 13:07
ancient mariner

I guess you would really have to fly planes with thrust reverseres to understand my comment.

I've seen pilots pull on reverse and get it wrong. Engines never come up at the same rate, sometimes the rigging is wrong on the reverse levers. And you develop a touch. A touch for the type and for the particular plane.

The flight in question had assymetric reverse and it seems to have pulled the plane to one side. Had they altered that they might have been able to pull the plane back towards centerline.

Directional control with aerodynamic or nosewheel steering is preferred, but if you are going off the side, wouldn't you try assymetric thrust?

Ancient Mariner
9th Apr 2015, 13:12
but if you are going off the side, wouldn't you try assymetric thrust?
Me? Never, as I'm not a pilot.
Just wondering how you would train on using asymmetric thrust for directional control on the ground. Sim?

skyhighfallguy
9th Apr 2015, 13:20
re reading the handout, it says MAINTAIN directional control, not re establish directional control when you are headed off the side of the runway.

ancient mariner, in the real world, reversers do not deploy at the same instant, and engines do not spool up at the same rate, therefore you gain real world experience with assymetric thrust while attempting to establish equal thrust.

bubbers has spoken of the "REINS" technique and he is correct, you find one engine putting out more thrust than another engine. You find the plane pointing to one side or the other, you can look down and make your adjustments on the EPR gauge or you can "take the reins" and establish an equal amount of thrust

I guess you will have to go out and learn to fly ancient mariner to fully understand.

IF the plane's nose is going left, you pull back a little more on the right reverse lever, IF YOU can't maintain aerodynamic or nosewheel control. IF the engine EPR gauges show you are producing more thrust on the left engine (while reverser is deployed) you push forward on the left reverser lever and pull back a little on the right (increasing reverse) to balance them


YOU GAIN experience with assymetric thrust by trying to avoid its use, but you have this experience if you ever need to use it.

bubbers44
9th Apr 2015, 13:51
Most landings runway length is not critical so brakes are not used until around 80 knots to save on brake wear on my airline. I used the same technique prior to the airlines also.

From reverser deployment to 80 knots small rudder inputs are used to maintain centerline tracking. Crosswinds and assymetrical thrust application would be the main reasons for correction to remain on centerline. This is the time to see the results of a bit of assymetrical thrust to maintain centerline using rudders if necessary to maintain centerline tracking. It will soon become easy and instrinctive so one day when things go south you have that extra tool to bail you out of a situation.

You haven't broken any rules because no pilot can keep perfectly balanced reverse power anyway when most of your attention is directed out the front window.

Obviously it wasn't in this crash causing it from the start.

skyhighfallguy
9th Apr 2015, 22:04
ancient mariner

I think you are being sincere and I say , you are welcome.

It may seem odd, but straight and level flying, like in cruise flight, is actually many, very tiny turns, just like when you are driving your car and trying to stay in the lane. Between the lane lines.

One regulation, by way of example, says we are never to get below the glideslope when coming in to land. The regulation goes on to expressly say : except for normal bracketing maneuvers. (that means sort of hunting for the glideslope by searching up and down for the exact center)

We sort of hunt for the exact reverse thrust if it comes in unevenly, and by doing that we gain the "TOUCH" I've been trying to convey.

Feel free to ask any flying questions you like.

MrSnuggles
10th Apr 2015, 18:00
Thankyou all who contributed here. Very interesting discussion regarding reverse thrust as directional control in landing phase.

Blanketing of the rudder in DC-9 or MD-80 would that be because of bucket reversers? Question mostly directed to Mr Skyfall, who wanted to answer more questions... ;-D

ManaAdaSystem
10th Apr 2015, 19:01
IF the plane's nose is going left, you pull back a little more on the right reverse lever, IF YOU can't maintain aerodynamic or nosewheel control.

You have never done any landings on slippery runways? And I'm not talking about wet runways here.
What you just said was a setup for loss of control on a slippery runway in a MD 80. If the nose is going left, there is a fair chance your tail is going right.
Go ahead, pull more on the right reverser in direct contradiction with MD and now, Boeings recommendation.
MD drivers know what will happen, you don't.

skyhighfallguy
10th Apr 2015, 20:19
Mr Snuggles

It is partly the type of reverser (bucket/clamshell)but also how the airflow comes off the bucket and interrupts the airflow from the forward motion of the plane over the vertical stabilizer and the rudder.

oversimplification: relative wind (from motion of airplane ) moving over vertical fin at 100 knots. Jet Exhaust from bucket reversers moving from opposite direction at 60 knots , so resultant air flow over rudder is 40, not enough to do much. These numbers are for illustration only.

MANAADASYSTEM: fine, tell us what you would do in the situation you indicate. maybe you don't see what is happening? In the delta crack up, there was more reverse thrust on the left engine wasn't there? And the plane left the runway going to the left. Seems that reverse thrust can move the plane, just not used properly in this case.

And I've been to many slippery runways. I flew what EK Gann use to call AM21. Those funny airports on the top side of the US

Sailvi767
11th Apr 2015, 14:27
In the Delta incident there was a left crosswind. The crosswind probably had far more impact on the left drift then the small difference in reverse EPR.

Lord Spandex Masher
11th Apr 2015, 14:45
The trouble with slippery runways is if you're yawing into wind and also drifting downwind reverse, asymmetric, or otherwise is exactly the wrong thing to do as it will exacerbate the downwind drift.

flyingchanges
11th Apr 2015, 14:57
Reported braking action was good with a strong left crosswind. This appears to be more in line with loss of directional control due to rudder blanking. The slippery runway scenario would have seen them depart off the downwind side of the runway.

bubbers44
11th Apr 2015, 16:07
KLGA 051524Z 04007KT 1/4SM R04/2600V2800FT SN FZFG VV009 M03/M04 A3013 RMK AO2 P0004
KLGA 051451Z 03010KT 1/4SM R04/3000V4500FT SN FZFG VV012 M03/M04 A3014 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 3/4 SLP207 P0003 60013 T10281044 53040

An 8 knot crosswind at 130 knots would not cause this accident by itself. A combination of the crosswind and .16 EPR more L reverse and nosewheel not yet on the runway probably will be the cause.

I think everybody agrees using reverse thrust will increase the downwind drift on an icy runway if the plane is angled into the wind but being blown to the downwind side. In this case this didn't happen. The plane left the runway on the upwind side so the plane just had to be straightened out to stay on the runway.

ManaAdaSystem
11th Apr 2015, 16:33
And the way to do that is to cancel the reverse and use rudder to steer back onto the runway centerline. Then reapply reverse thrust.