Continental 737 Off Runway at DEN
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, now you're starting to mix apples and oranges. That wrong runway accident isn't even in the same ballpark with the DEN accident under discussion here.
If the winds and runway conditions were within limits at DEN for the accident aircraft (which seems to be the case), the fact that there was a crosswind will not be a contributing factor any more than the captain getting out of bed that morning.
If the winds and runway conditions were within limits at DEN for the accident aircraft (which seems to be the case), the fact that there was a crosswind will not be a contributing factor any more than the captain getting out of bed that morning.
I'm trying to figure out why you think ATC may take a hit. If ATC was complying with the use plan (which a quick review indicates they were) then any NTSB finding will point its finger at DEN airport authorities and not the individual controllers.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The captain will always prevail in a request for a more into-wind runway but at a place like Denver, Chicago, Kennedy, Toronto (especially), and others it will almost always cost a 30 to 60 minute delay or a very long hold on arrival and fuel is always an issue."
So right. One afternoon at LGA I was overweight for the runway in use by the time they put extra pax onboard and we taxiied, so I requested a different runway from the tower. As best I remember, the tower operator's reply went something like this:
"Sure, no problem. But we'll have to turn the flow around for the entire New York metro area. Expect a four-hour delay."
I burned down for about 40 minutes and departed on the runway in use.
So right. One afternoon at LGA I was overweight for the runway in use by the time they put extra pax onboard and we taxiied, so I requested a different runway from the tower. As best I remember, the tower operator's reply went something like this:
"Sure, no problem. But we'll have to turn the flow around for the entire New York metro area. Expect a four-hour delay."
I burned down for about 40 minutes and departed on the runway in use.
Last edited by Murexway; 27th Dec 2008 at 01:31.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Colorado
Age: 73
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain released from hospital
Since no one has yet mentioned this bit of good news, I thought I would:
Pilot in Denver runway crash released from hospital
The Denver Post is also reporting that the NTSB plans to move the wreckage "early next week" so they'll finally get a look at the nose gear. Should be very interesting ...
Pilot in Denver runway crash released from hospital
The Denver Post is also reporting that the NTSB plans to move the wreckage "early next week" so they'll finally get a look at the nose gear. Should be very interesting ...
RobertS975;
Well, they are but that's only the beginning of the decision-making process, notwithstanding traffic. WAT (Weight-Altitude-Temperature) limits, departure runway obstacle clearance data, (13 and 22 esp), and winds may individually or collectively dictate different weights for the two runways, 31/13 or 04/22.
Also, (and you may already appreciate this), the airplane may be able to "do it" but should anything occur which compromises an "on-limits" takeoff performance, there is no defense for the decision. It is by-the-books or no-go.
Murexway;
Absolutely correct.
WhirlyBob;
Yes it should but the thinking behind this interest is, itself, interesting.
Would the demonstrated crosswind for the 73' assume nosewheel steering until liftoff and if so, what is the effect of the available rudder throughout the takeoff roll in the demonstrated crosswind condtions? The steer-by-wire nosewheel steering disconnects on the A320 at around 105kts, (but used to disconnect at 75kts or so as crosswinds were an issue on rudder alone). I fully realize they're not quite the same design or certification process/outcomes due types but all the same, the demonstrated crosswinds for each type are about the same. I also realize that we still don't know what the source of the reported vibration was and how uncontrollable, if at all, such made the airplane. Nor do we know what the recorders indicate even though they've been read. I suspect, perhaps like many, quietly, that the pedals and rudder were hard right and braking was close to hard on the right bogie.
If the scissors was broken in the takeoff sequence, it may or may not caster and the airplane may or may not controllable at 90kts by rudder alone. Perhaps it was a hard-over nosewheel due mechanical failure in which case we're out of test and certification data and territory and somewhat along for the ride.
Very glad to hear the captain has been released from hospital.
Aren't both LGA runways the same length at 7,000 feet?
Also, (and you may already appreciate this), the airplane may be able to "do it" but should anything occur which compromises an "on-limits" takeoff performance, there is no defense for the decision. It is by-the-books or no-go.
Murexway;
If the winds and runway conditions were within limits at DEN for the accident aircraft (which seems to be the case), the fact that there was a crosswind will not be a contributing factor any more than the captain getting out of bed that morning.
WhirlyBob;
The Denver Post is also reporting that the NTSB plans to move the wreckage "early next week" so they'll finally get a look at the nose gear. Should be very interesting ...
Would the demonstrated crosswind for the 73' assume nosewheel steering until liftoff and if so, what is the effect of the available rudder throughout the takeoff roll in the demonstrated crosswind condtions? The steer-by-wire nosewheel steering disconnects on the A320 at around 105kts, (but used to disconnect at 75kts or so as crosswinds were an issue on rudder alone). I fully realize they're not quite the same design or certification process/outcomes due types but all the same, the demonstrated crosswinds for each type are about the same. I also realize that we still don't know what the source of the reported vibration was and how uncontrollable, if at all, such made the airplane. Nor do we know what the recorders indicate even though they've been read. I suspect, perhaps like many, quietly, that the pedals and rudder were hard right and braking was close to hard on the right bogie.
If the scissors was broken in the takeoff sequence, it may or may not caster and the airplane may or may not controllable at 90kts by rudder alone. Perhaps it was a hard-over nosewheel due mechanical failure in which case we're out of test and certification data and territory and somewhat along for the ride.
Very glad to hear the captain has been released from hospital.
Last edited by PJ2; 27th Dec 2008 at 03:42.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'beechf33a'
In your Post #230 you write:
"Personally, I am not trying to apply any kind of logic or suggest blame to anyone, just stating an opinion as to what the NTSB would say if cross wind was a factor."
But yet in your previous posts.....
#206 - If wind was a factor then ATC must share the blame.
#212 - When the final NTSB report comes out and if the cross wind was a major factor you watch some blame assigned to the controller.
.....it sure looks like you're will to accept/lay some blame on ATC.
In your Post #230 you write:
"Personally, I am not trying to apply any kind of logic or suggest blame to anyone, just stating an opinion as to what the NTSB would say if cross wind was a factor."
But yet in your previous posts.....
#206 - If wind was a factor then ATC must share the blame.
#212 - When the final NTSB report comes out and if the cross wind was a major factor you watch some blame assigned to the controller.
.....it sure looks like you're will to accept/lay some blame on ATC.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pj2 your post worries me:-
Quote - In fact, the neighbourhood "noise police" have more "authority", in terms of being listened to and taken seriously by airport authorities and politicians, than the captain, when it comes to runway use. It's why airline captains aren't politicians and why politicians could never be airline captains. - Unquote
This thread has rambled away from the important aspects, especially as no-one yet knows precisely what happened. However a number of allegations have been made as to who MAY bear the ultimate or partial responsibility.
All of this dialogue is missing the priority that the captain's authority is constantly under pressure from outside sources, whether directly involved such as ATC, or extraneous persons desirous of being re-elected who inspire noise abatement take-off procedures and routings which are frankly not safety designed, and hence need rejecting as often as any responsible captain feels appropriate.
Quote - In fact, the neighbourhood "noise police" have more "authority", in terms of being listened to and taken seriously by airport authorities and politicians, than the captain, when it comes to runway use. It's why airline captains aren't politicians and why politicians could never be airline captains. - Unquote
This thread has rambled away from the important aspects, especially as no-one yet knows precisely what happened. However a number of allegations have been made as to who MAY bear the ultimate or partial responsibility.
All of this dialogue is missing the priority that the captain's authority is constantly under pressure from outside sources, whether directly involved such as ATC, or extraneous persons desirous of being re-elected who inspire noise abatement take-off procedures and routings which are frankly not safety designed, and hence need rejecting as often as any responsible captain feels appropriate.
manrow;
Thank you for picking this point up which is often lost in discussions of the mundane and, unfortunately, sometimes even lost to the responsible person in the left seat. That is indeed "where the buck stops" and it is that person alone who's decisions and actions will first be questioned. The captain can do anything he or she needs to do to keep passengers, aircraft and property safe. All they have to do is justify it afterwards.
The difficulty is, in my view, not enough captains know where the park brake is nor do they use the word, "no" often enough, and instead press on with someone else's agenda "because it worked the last time".
Most of the time it does indeed work because airline procedures are not haphazardly designed or taught nor is the industry so demanding that an operation is paralyzed by due process, (although we've all seen some pretty horrendous individual operations which we'd all like to forget!).
After all is safe in the judgement of the captain, airline captains also have a duty to their company to ensure that the company makes money, within the bounds and requirements of flight safety.
Nor does any of this absolve the company officers right from the CEO/President on down to middle line management. If they are not doing their part in constantly asking the question, "Are we safe?", and ensuring that all employees know, right from the top executive, that there is an active and vigilant intolerance for compromise in safety, then they may be creating a lax or dysfunctional safety culture and may become a "contributing cause" of an accident.
That said, every captain must work within a system which itself is necessarily a compromise due to volume, fleet types and route type, (domestic/international). As stated above, a captain can request, even demand a certain runway but it may cost a very long delay. One is then instantly in the larger framed discussion regarding the use of airspace and runway allocations. To remain a good neighbour, airports will have policies of rotating runways in appropriate wind conditions so that everyone "shares" in the noiseprint.
To enlarge the frame, local city/municipal governments will, in order to enhance tax bases, grant zoning requests, often for residential areas but industrial zoning as well, on airports' doorsteps. More compromise of limited land use. One could build a small city on the land an airport takes up and while the economic benefits are enormous, so are the costs.
From "captain to the mayor's chair" in a few quick paragraphs, but these are the extended realities which impinge on the decision-making process in every operational cockpit.
All of this dialogue is missing the priority that the captain's authority is constantly under pressure from outside sources, whether directly involved such as ATC, or extraneous persons desirous of being re-elected who inspire noise abatement take-off procedures and routings which are frankly not safety designed, and hence need rejecting as often as any responsible captain feels appropriate.
The difficulty is, in my view, not enough captains know where the park brake is nor do they use the word, "no" often enough, and instead press on with someone else's agenda "because it worked the last time".
Most of the time it does indeed work because airline procedures are not haphazardly designed or taught nor is the industry so demanding that an operation is paralyzed by due process, (although we've all seen some pretty horrendous individual operations which we'd all like to forget!).
After all is safe in the judgement of the captain, airline captains also have a duty to their company to ensure that the company makes money, within the bounds and requirements of flight safety.
Nor does any of this absolve the company officers right from the CEO/President on down to middle line management. If they are not doing their part in constantly asking the question, "Are we safe?", and ensuring that all employees know, right from the top executive, that there is an active and vigilant intolerance for compromise in safety, then they may be creating a lax or dysfunctional safety culture and may become a "contributing cause" of an accident.
That said, every captain must work within a system which itself is necessarily a compromise due to volume, fleet types and route type, (domestic/international). As stated above, a captain can request, even demand a certain runway but it may cost a very long delay. One is then instantly in the larger framed discussion regarding the use of airspace and runway allocations. To remain a good neighbour, airports will have policies of rotating runways in appropriate wind conditions so that everyone "shares" in the noiseprint.
To enlarge the frame, local city/municipal governments will, in order to enhance tax bases, grant zoning requests, often for residential areas but industrial zoning as well, on airports' doorsteps. More compromise of limited land use. One could build a small city on the land an airport takes up and while the economic benefits are enormous, so are the costs.
From "captain to the mayor's chair" in a few quick paragraphs, but these are the extended realities which impinge on the decision-making process in every operational cockpit.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Aren't both LGA runways the same length at 7,000 feet?"
Hello..... The departure runway in use had a 90 degree crosswind, while the landing runway had a direct headwind.... which would have made me legal at my full takeoff weight. Thus, I had to burn down fuel and reduce my weight in order to be legal to takeoff with a zero headwind component.
Hello..... The departure runway in use had a 90 degree crosswind, while the landing runway had a direct headwind.... which would have made me legal at my full takeoff weight. Thus, I had to burn down fuel and reduce my weight in order to be legal to takeoff with a zero headwind component.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: St Charles
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crosswind Takeoff -- Skipping
Let's look at this from an improper crosswind takeoff technique perspective. According to this article:
DIA crash details emerge - The Denver Post
Now, I know that it's improper to speculate on what caused the accident, but this seems like a good opportunity to look at good crosswind technique, which I have found sorely lacking in many pilots that I've flown with.
If there was no upwind aileron being applied, only directional rudder, then as the airplane approached flying airspeed, it is quite likely that the upwind wing could have risen, lifting the upwind landing gear, and placing all of the weight of the airplane on the downwind main landing gear. This would cause skipping, and could account for the "bumping and rattling" on the CVR.
If this were the case, then more rudder would have been applied to correct the aircraft toward the runway centerline. You would have the effect of an airplane pointing to a heading a number of degrees left of the runway heading.
Okay, now follow me here. The captain gets quite uncomfortable with this situation, and executes an abort.
He simultaneously returds the throttles, extends the speed brakes (spoilers) applies reverse thrust, and the wheel brakes.
What happens when the spoilers get deployed? All of a sudden, the lift is killed on the upwind wing, all four MLG tires 'bite' the runway surface, and the airplane immediately follows its heading, which, as you remember, was to the left of the runway heading.
Of course we won't know what really happened for a while, but it's a valuable lesson for the beginning pilots here "aileron cures skipping".
DIA crash details emerge - The Denver Post
Forty-one seconds after Continental Airlines Flight 1404 began its takeoff roll at DIA on Saturday night, a "bumping and rattling" started, according to information gleaned from the cockpit voice recorder. Four seconds later, a pilot called for a rejected takeoff, according to the National Transportation Safety Board.
If there was no upwind aileron being applied, only directional rudder, then as the airplane approached flying airspeed, it is quite likely that the upwind wing could have risen, lifting the upwind landing gear, and placing all of the weight of the airplane on the downwind main landing gear. This would cause skipping, and could account for the "bumping and rattling" on the CVR.
If this were the case, then more rudder would have been applied to correct the aircraft toward the runway centerline. You would have the effect of an airplane pointing to a heading a number of degrees left of the runway heading.
Okay, now follow me here. The captain gets quite uncomfortable with this situation, and executes an abort.
Four seconds later, a pilot called for a rejected takeoff, according to the National Transportation Safety Board.
What happens when the spoilers get deployed? All of a sudden, the lift is killed on the upwind wing, all four MLG tires 'bite' the runway surface, and the airplane immediately follows its heading, which, as you remember, was to the left of the runway heading.
Of course we won't know what really happened for a while, but it's a valuable lesson for the beginning pilots here "aileron cures skipping".
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happens when the spoilers get deployed? All of a sudden, the lift is killed on the upwind wing, all four MLG tires 'bite' the runway surface, and the airplane immediately follows its heading, which, as you remember, was to the left of the runway heading.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FPP - why post a newspaper article from 23/12 on 28/12? I think you'll find all its contents in this thread if you take the trouble to look First post here and you are dropping little gems of 'hints' from your vast experience (not given) that the Captain might just have 'done it wrong'...................
Spare me!
Spare me!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FPP:
Now, I know that it's improper to speculate on what caused the accident, but this seems like a good opportunity to look at good crosswind technique, which I have found sorely lacking in many pilots that I've flown with.
---------------------------------------
Don't know what you fly (Cessnas?) or how much experience you have, but rest assured, this wasn't the first crosswind takoff this CAL captain has ever made. He wouldn't be in the left seat of a 737 if he couldn't manage to stay on a dry runway with a crosswind
Now, I know that it's improper to speculate on what caused the accident, but this seems like a good opportunity to look at good crosswind technique, which I have found sorely lacking in many pilots that I've flown with.
---------------------------------------
Don't know what you fly (Cessnas?) or how much experience you have, but rest assured, this wasn't the first crosswind takoff this CAL captain has ever made. He wouldn't be in the left seat of a 737 if he couldn't manage to stay on a dry runway with a crosswind
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FPP, are you a pilot?
Before you start accusing CAL pilots of poor airmanship:
A wing needs Angle of Attack to fly. Rolling down the runway the AOA is zero. It won't fly and your tires will have all the friction it needs when you abort.
Also try to find some crosswind landing video's on Youtube, preferably some crabbed (is it called traversed in English?) landings.
You'll find out that inertial is the greater force and once the aircraft touches, you'll see that it will continue in the direction of its flightpath and not the way it's nose is pointing.
What happens when the spoilers get deployed? All of a sudden, the lift is killed on the upwind wing, all four MLG tires 'bite' the runway surface, and the airplane immediately follows its heading, which, as you remember, was to the left of the runway heading.
A wing needs Angle of Attack to fly. Rolling down the runway the AOA is zero. It won't fly and your tires will have all the friction it needs when you abort.
Also try to find some crosswind landing video's on Youtube, preferably some crabbed (is it called traversed in English?) landings.
You'll find out that inertial is the greater force and once the aircraft touches, you'll see that it will continue in the direction of its flightpath and not the way it's nose is pointing.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FPP
I think you will find that by the time someone makes it to LHS (or even RHS) in a company like Continental they can probably manage a crosswind take-off. I am sure they are probably very grateful to you though for reminding them of the techniques involved.
BTW, I like your idea to "RETURD the throttles"
I think you will find that by the time someone makes it to LHS (or even RHS) in a company like Continental they can probably manage a crosswind take-off. I am sure they are probably very grateful to you though for reminding them of the techniques involved.
BTW, I like your idea to "RETURD the throttles"
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by golfyankeesierra"
FPP, are you a pilot?
Judging by your remarks you're not....
A wing needs Angle of Attack to fly.
Rolling down the runway the AOA is zero.
It won't fly and your tires will have all the friction it needs when you abort.
Also try to find some crosswind landing video's on Youtube, preferably some crabbed (is it called traversed in English?) landings.
That said, there ARE some "interesting" crabbed landings on YouTube....
Kai Tak springs to mind.
CJ