Continental 737 Off Runway at DEN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: bath
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
silly
read the first 3 words and totally got what it was really about. 
110 passengers and only 2 think its neglegent.
what makes these two texan women believe that the pilots have not also suffered?
what is neglegent about an aborted take off where no one dies?
we still dont have all the facts nor the cause. as continental are saying, its premature.
110 passengers and only 2 think its neglegent.
what makes these two texan women believe that the pilots have not also suffered?
what is neglegent about an aborted take off where no one dies?
we still dont have all the facts nor the cause. as continental are saying, its premature.
Guest
Posts: n/a
English
Once again, reading out of context, or opining with incomplete/inaccurate information and knickers go in a bunch. The attorney's theory may have to do with the procedures and timing of the RTO. Negligence is the standard in a civil suit, besides, it is the jury the attorney wants to understand, not PPRuNers. If the attorney has filed with only public knowledge, he should have waited. If it turns out the crew acted without delay, and arrested the a/c as well as possible under the circumstances, (as I believe was done), the lawyer has not helped his clients, they will look greedy and uninformed, as will he. AF
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Florida winter Utah summer
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
protectthehornet,
"Continental is also facing a huge trial in France regarding its POSSIBLE role in the crash of Air France Concord"
As it was explained to me it was standard procedure for an airport ops vehicle to conduct a FOD sweep of the runway at CDG prior to every concorde T/O. I have heard that on the day in question this sweep was not conducted because of some confusion/issues with an ongoing airport fire drill by the vehicle/personnel responsible for this task.
"Continental is also facing a huge trial in France regarding its POSSIBLE role in the crash of Air France Concord"
As it was explained to me it was standard procedure for an airport ops vehicle to conduct a FOD sweep of the runway at CDG prior to every concorde T/O. I have heard that on the day in question this sweep was not conducted because of some confusion/issues with an ongoing airport fire drill by the vehicle/personnel responsible for this task.
As it was explained to me it was standard procedure for an airport ops vehicle to conduct a FOD sweep of the runway at CDG prior to every concorde T/O. I have heard that on the day in question this sweep was not conducted because of some confusion/issues with an ongoing airport fire drill by the vehicle/personnel responsible for this task.
It implies knowledge beforehand that the aircraft was uniquely vulnerable to runway FOD at CDG and a specific approved procedure was not in place for the accident flight.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC,
I think he can also leave off the somewhat tendentious "uniquely"....
airfoilmod,
Sorry, but FOD "sweeping" is done in civil aviation as well.
Obviously not before every take-off or landing
, but to the best of my knowledge it's done several times a day both at CDG and LHR.
Concorde is hardly "uniquely vulnerable" to FOD. A late-model 737 too, with its nacelles practically dragging along the runway (that's why they ain't round ) works very nicely as a vacuum cleaner for undesirable objects left by the previous customer.
CJ
I think he can also leave off the somewhat tendentious "uniquely"....
airfoilmod,
Sorry, but FOD "sweeping" is done in civil aviation as well.
Obviously not before every take-off or landing
, but to the best of my knowledge it's done several times a day both at CDG and LHR.Concorde is hardly "uniquely vulnerable" to FOD. A late-model 737 too, with its nacelles practically dragging along the runway (that's why they ain't round
) works very nicely as a vacuum cleaner for undesirable objects left by the previous customer.CJ
A late-model 737 too, with its nacelles practically dragging along the runway (that's why they ain't round ) works very nicely as a vacuum cleaner for undesirable objects left by the previous customer.
The much larger risk from FOD are tires picking it up and throwing it up into the aircraft wings etc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
lomapaseo
One disagrees with you at great risk, however, as one knows, at Brake Release, great gobs of air are being pushed into the cowl. It is deceptive to consider a vacuum in Mother nature, when what is actually happening is air is rushing into a site of lower pressure. But as it does, it is picking up hitchhikers, small bits of gravel, birds, ball caps. Sadly, sometimes humans. When groundspeed is zero, all manner of effluenza can nick the blades. As airspeed increases, the "cone" of available air narrows to include less of what may lay at the side of the engine and more of what is directly ahead. Am I wrong here? I would ask very few, but I include you.
AF
AF
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once was SLF in the last row of a DC-9 taking off from KBOS in a moderate snowstorm. The snowflakes and inlets were illuminated by the logo lights, and the snow behaved exactly as airfoilmod described - initially flowing forward along the cowl and turning into the inlet, then (as IAS picked up) turning to enter only from the front. One of the most graphic airflow visualizations I've ever seen.
And so, lomapaseo, don't underestimate the risk of FOD or erosive damage on wing-mounted donks running high power while static. Years ago I collected a bunch of video of inlet vortices and helped produce a training film on this risk. A vortex left to develop will stir up whatever might be lying under the front end of the engine, and some of that will get sucked (oops, blown) in.
That said, some (or many?) aircraft have small bleed air jets near the bottom of the inlet to disturb/"destroy" said inlet vortices. If they work at all, they've probably saved $millions in repair costs.
And so, lomapaseo, don't underestimate the risk of FOD or erosive damage on wing-mounted donks running high power while static. Years ago I collected a bunch of video of inlet vortices and helped produce a training film on this risk. A vortex left to develop will stir up whatever might be lying under the front end of the engine, and some of that will get sucked (oops, blown) in.
That said, some (or many?) aircraft have small bleed air jets near the bottom of the inlet to disturb/"destroy" said inlet vortices. If they work at all, they've probably saved $millions in repair costs.
Well guess what
I agree with what airfoilmod and barit1 said above
My finer point was the chance vs the conditions of sucking something up into the inlet. I think we agree at the start of the takeoff roll (low forward speed, high thrust). but it is at that condition where everybody else's engines has already vacuum the runway.
Yes blowing snow is the easiest and most visible item to be lifted off the runway and fun to watch. After about 100 yards the aircraft speed was high enough that the vortex sucking it up went away.
The most difficult item to lift off the runway is a dense object where the vortex pressure drop vs the area is unlikely to lift it up. Now reverse thrust blowing something up in front of the inlet is a different story and much higher risk (low speed high EPR is no good)
I'm waiting to hear more about the Alaskan B737 today that damaged its engines in an emergency high reverse power stop before it went off an icy runway.
I agree with what airfoilmod and barit1 said above
My finer point was the chance vs the conditions of sucking something up into the inlet. I think we agree at the start of the takeoff roll (low forward speed, high thrust). but it is at that condition where everybody else's engines has already vacuum the runway.
Yes blowing snow is the easiest and most visible item to be lifted off the runway and fun to watch. After about 100 yards the aircraft speed was high enough that the vortex sucking it up went away.
The most difficult item to lift off the runway is a dense object where the vortex pressure drop vs the area is unlikely to lift it up. Now reverse thrust blowing something up in front of the inlet is a different story and much higher risk (low speed high EPR is no good)
I'm waiting to hear more about the Alaskan B737 today that damaged its engines in an emergency high reverse power stop before it went off an icy runway.
Guest
Posts: n/a
lomapaseo
point taken re: reverse. If as is suspected the crew here selected reverse after RTO (and after leaving the runway), I wonder if they briefed the terrain off 34R? I'm only slightly joking, full power off the concrete, but especially in dirt, snow, weeds, FOD, is that not asking for an engine uncontained event. I'm thinking pinch the juice and hold on, but that's me.
A passive, still or even idling fan will not augment crazy vector roll along off tarmac g's and separate from the airframe. In other words, if the engine is producing thrust and the a/c is experiencing rapidly changing accelerations and change of direction, the engine will tune or detune its thrust to create an intolerable load on mounts. That may be why the port side engine separated.
A passive, still or even idling fan will not augment crazy vector roll along off tarmac g's and separate from the airframe. In other words, if the engine is producing thrust and the a/c is experiencing rapidly changing accelerations and change of direction, the engine will tune or detune its thrust to create an intolerable load on mounts. That may be why the port side engine separated.
Last edited by airfoilmod; 15th Jan 2009 at 02:18.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737 Vortex Dissapater
About forty years ago Boeing developed a “gravel runway kit” for 737’s that were operated in the frozen northlands. It consisted of a pair of vortex dissipaters (tubes that extended about six feet in front of the engines inlets and blew bleed air downward and aft in front of the inlet), retractable nav lights on the belly, a gravel deflector (ski board mounted on the nose gear), Teflon paint on the belly skin, etc. It was later found that the vortex dissipaters were beneficial for 737 operations on sand storm affected runways in the Middle East. The vortex dissipaters were very effective in killing the lifting of FOD form the runway surfaces.
Here are some photos and additional details: Unpaved Strip Kit
Here are some photos and additional details: Unpaved Strip Kit
Last edited by repariit; 9th Mar 2009 at 13:14.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the absence of any structural/mechanical failure being announced, and finding it almost unbelievable that crew wasn't capable of handling the crosswind, I keep coming back to a C of G problem.
We all know how accurately final load numbers can be and I'm thinking an aft C of G would explain the lack of rudder and nosewheel authourity. Not normally a problem that causes such disastrous results but this fin did have winglets.
I know next to nothing about the 737, Does anybody know the overall C of G impact caused by the winglets on this type. I have heard the design required forward ballast be installed to maintain the ground envelope.
We all know how accurately final load numbers can be and I'm thinking an aft C of G would explain the lack of rudder and nosewheel authourity. Not normally a problem that causes such disastrous results but this fin did have winglets.
I know next to nothing about the 737, Does anybody know the overall C of G impact caused by the winglets on this type. I have heard the design required forward ballast be installed to maintain the ground envelope.