Continental 737 Off Runway at DEN
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
because it’s virtually impossible for departing aircraft to consistently fly over the ground track of the extended runway centerline
Having read only bits of this topic here, did that 737 begin its takeoff roll with a very high quartering tail wind?
CO might have very thorough procedures as a result of the DC-9 dash 10 crash in DEN many years ago, and also due to the MD-80 which landed gear up in IAH due to a very relaxed, amiable crew which left the hydraulic pumps in "Off" and "Low" (no "slat disagreement light"?).
If the winds were such, was it the primary departure runway chosen by the Tower Supervisor and if so, was the crew aware of the wind direction and velocity?
Maybe I misunderstood the photo which has 'Rwy 34' or '35' written over it.
CO might have very thorough procedures as a result of the DC-9 dash 10 crash in DEN many years ago, and also due to the MD-80 which landed gear up in IAH due to a very relaxed, amiable crew which left the hydraulic pumps in "Off" and "Low" (no "slat disagreement light"?).
If the winds were such, was it the primary departure runway chosen by the Tower Supervisor and if so, was the crew aware of the wind direction and velocity?
Maybe I misunderstood the photo which has 'Rwy 34' or '35' written over it.
Twas not an -80 that landed without Dunlops in Houston, but a DC 9, not that it makes it any less excusable.
Silly accident of course but why did Douglas have low / hi positions on hydraulic pumps, strange system, I realise they should have seen red lights, however.
On more than one occasion I made the same error (albeit on the ground) forgetting to put the hyd pumps back to hi after starting the second engine.
Predictable result was gear not retracting until I woke up and reselected hi on the pump position
Silly accident of course but why did Douglas have low / hi positions on hydraulic pumps, strange system, I realise they should have seen red lights, however.
On more than one occasion I made the same error (albeit on the ground) forgetting to put the hyd pumps back to hi after starting the second engine.
Predictable result was gear not retracting until I woke up and reselected hi on the pump position
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CONF iture writes:
"Usually I have some harsh words for Airbus, but it's one of the many things the bus does beautifully with the RWY TRK mode."
That might be true but it isn't what ATC expects you do be doing. Until all a/c are so equipped, it's of little value ATC-wise.
"Usually I have some harsh words for Airbus, but it's one of the many things the bus does beautifully with the RWY TRK mode."
That might be true but it isn't what ATC expects you do be doing. Until all a/c are so equipped, it's of little value ATC-wise.
"Usually I have some harsh words for Airbus, but it's one of the many things the bus does beautifully with the RWY TRK mode."
That might be true but it isn't what ATC expects you do be doing.
That might be true but it isn't what ATC expects you do be doing.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may have misread this after a couple of tries, but what does ATC expect you to be doing?
While we as pilots proud our selves when we end up smack ON the extended centerline after the perfect crosswind take-off!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sonoma, CA, USA
Age: 79
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crosswind TO
OK, so we've successfully kept the beast on the centerline during the TO roll with the max demonstrated X wind doing its best to test our prowess. We lift off and remove the cross control required to stay straight on the ground and in order to maintain runway heading, . Do we then let the aircraft assume a new heading into the wind in order to maintain the RW heading which has now become a course?
This assumes that the wind we fought on the ground run is constant as we climb, and we don't encounter any wind shear or change in wind speed or direction.
This would be no problem at SFO which has a VOR right in the 28/10-1/19 intersection which would give us azimuth clues.
I have to agree with golfyankeesierra that the controllers want us to maintain runway heading regardless of wind.
In the case of SFO where there are parallel departures on two closely spaced runways, this is the only thing that makes sense.
This assumes that the wind we fought on the ground run is constant as we climb, and we don't encounter any wind shear or change in wind speed or direction.
This would be no problem at SFO which has a VOR right in the 28/10-1/19 intersection which would give us azimuth clues.
I have to agree with golfyankeesierra that the controllers want us to maintain runway heading regardless of wind.
In the case of SFO where there are parallel departures on two closely spaced runways, this is the only thing that makes sense.
Last edited by Robert Campbell; 5th Jan 2009 at 23:54. Reason: clarity
lomapaseo;
Good question, (if a bit of thread-drift is permitted).
ATC expects departing aircraft to fly runway heading unless a clearance to fly runway track is given, unless a specific departure procedure such as noise abatement or terrain clearance is in the airport notes, or unless the SID assigned requires "tracking" vice "headings". Hong Kong is a case in point both for noise and for terrain clearance - (and for heavy 340's out of Hong Kong, be very mindful of the SIDS off the 7's with a power loss!)
But is there a right and wrong from an ATC standpoint for a takeoff?
ATC expects departing aircraft to fly runway heading unless a clearance to fly runway track is given, unless a specific departure procedure such as noise abatement or terrain clearance is in the airport notes, or unless the SID assigned requires "tracking" vice "headings". Hong Kong is a case in point both for noise and for terrain clearance - (and for heavy 340's out of Hong Kong, be very mindful of the SIDS off the 7's with a power loss!)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile Back in Denver . . .
The facts dribble in slowly - - -
9NEWS.com | Colorado's Online News Leader | First pictures of wreckage inside Flight 1404
9NEWS.com | Colorado's Online News Leader | First pictures of wreckage inside Flight 1404
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Washago
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hypothetically , if im in a little cessna 150 and the runway is 10,000 feet long , im tracking the runway ,THEN when i cannot land on it , im going to maintain RWY heading as per clearance !! Maybe if im taking off with a B747 on a 7000 RWY at gross weight, i wont be worried about tracking RWY after 500 feet height since I will be landing off the end of it anyways, therefore i will go from take-off to tracking RWY heading in a slow smooth movement as per ATC instruction? Is this reasonable ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North America
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More Pictures
Thanks, repariit. Interesting comments by NTSB cited in the report as well:
"The nose gear here has been removed. It's been thoroughly documented," said English [NTSB investigator]. "You can see the nose gear in its fully extended position. We've harvested some of the components form there: the steering actuators and other components down there that would be of obvious interest have to be examined."
Pictures also at Closer look at Continental Flight 1404 : Rocky Mountain News : Rocky Mountain News
as all the local press clamber in for their photos.
"The nose gear here has been removed. It's been thoroughly documented," said English [NTSB investigator]. "You can see the nose gear in its fully extended position. We've harvested some of the components form there: the steering actuators and other components down there that would be of obvious interest have to be examined."
Pictures also at Closer look at Continental Flight 1404 : Rocky Mountain News : Rocky Mountain News
as all the local press clamber in for their photos.
More images: Closer look at Continental Flight 1404 : Rocky Mountain News : Rocky Mountain News
NTSB guy says "We don't have any indication now of an engine failure after a preliminary look."
Nothing new on nose gear - yet.
Right-wing fuel tank ruptured during off-runway excursion - leaking fuel ignited on hitting hot engine underneath. All pax evacuated using left-side exits due to fire on right side.
FO put rope out the right-seat window, but decided against using that route after seeing the flames.
Aluminum just doesn't like heat much - does it? I remember trying to weld some aluminum bars back in high school - they ended up looking about like that wing skin.
NTSB guy says "We don't have any indication now of an engine failure after a preliminary look."
Nothing new on nose gear - yet.
Right-wing fuel tank ruptured during off-runway excursion - leaking fuel ignited on hitting hot engine underneath. All pax evacuated using left-side exits due to fire on right side.
FO put rope out the right-seat window, but decided against using that route after seeing the flames.
Aluminum just doesn't like heat much - does it? I remember trying to weld some aluminum bars back in high school - they ended up looking about like that wing skin.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here Are A Few More Bits
How many of you think you could be blown off a dry runway by a x-wind gust of less than 35 knots with a ground speed of around 100 knots to give you rudder authority assuming that you have a healthy 737-500?
9NEWS.com | Colorado's Online News Leader | Safety experts cite crosswinds in Denver air crash
It is also curious that NTSB have now seen the nose gear, and have dissaembled it components for examination, but are not saying that it was NOT malfunctioning.
9NEWS.com | Colorado's Online News Leader | Safety experts cite crosswinds in Denver air crash
It is also curious that NTSB have now seen the nose gear, and have dissaembled it components for examination, but are not saying that it was NOT malfunctioning.
Guest
Posts: n/a
xwind a factor
Well, yeah. Keep in mind a 20 knot headwind is also a factor in a T/O. Tire inflation? a factor. CG? Factor.
reparit's question sbout NTSB's silence on the n/g? interesting. Relying on the n/g for steering up to rotation? a factor. If everything's in limit, what happened? If, as the mains did, the ng had parted company from the airframe, could it be said that maybe if it had, the excursion mightn't have occurred? Factor.
I claim the same right as the Embry-Riddle guy, the adjunct. Hypothesis. Nothing wrong with that. I'm not trying to stir the pot, just having a conversation. I always listen to Nance.
AF
reparit's question sbout NTSB's silence on the n/g? interesting. Relying on the n/g for steering up to rotation? a factor. If everything's in limit, what happened? If, as the mains did, the ng had parted company from the airframe, could it be said that maybe if it had, the excursion mightn't have occurred? Factor.
I claim the same right as the Embry-Riddle guy, the adjunct. Hypothesis. Nothing wrong with that. I'm not trying to stir the pot, just having a conversation. I always listen to Nance.
AF
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CO
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
I'm a met person not a pilot, so I have a question regarding the x-wind and control on roll out. Move away from thinking about a constant (but gusty) cross wind down the runway centerline, but a cross wind shear. What would happen if the pilots were compensating for a given cross wind, and then it suddenly (relative term) increased via speed and/or direction change? Would this cause the aircraft to head to the left due to increased side force on the vertical stabilizer that exceeded the restoring force generated by the given rudder position? Or would the pilot be able to react quickly enough to compensate? Not putting forth a hypothesis, just trying to get educated in an area that I don't know much about. Thanks...
I'm a met person not a pilot, so I have a question regarding the x-wind and control on roll out. Move away from thinking about a constant (but gusty) cross wind down the runway centerline, but a cross wind shear. What would happen if the pilots were compensating for a given cross wind, and then it suddenly (relative term) increased via speed and/or direction change? Would this cause the aircraft to head to the left due to increased side force on the vertical stabilizer that exceeded the restoring force generated by the given rudder position? Or would the pilot be able to react quickly enough to compensate? Not putting forth a hypothesis, just trying to get educated in an area that I don't know much about. Thanks...
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LBC - I would be surprised if it caused a problem - crews are used to varying crosswinds along a runway, in my experience the worst being Gatwick with a strong south-westerly. The most one would expect would be a minor 'wobble' off centreline and back on again. I really do think we are looking at a different cause here.