Continental 737 Off Runway at DEN
Update from the newsroom:
>> The reports that the plane swerved off the right side were just - incorrect - as the photos have long since revealed.
>> Some reports now that perhaps there WAS fire visible on one engine or another before the first swerve, so a powerplant failure (stall, ingestion, etc.) is still a possibility.
>> yes that is a fire station just off the skid path, (No. 4 on the diagram)and yes it was manned, and yes it responded within seconds due to the proximity. That plus the fact that the plane was well below V-speeds gets credit for the low number and severity of injuries.
>> The reports that the plane swerved off the right side were just - incorrect - as the photos have long since revealed.
>> Some reports now that perhaps there WAS fire visible on one engine or another before the first swerve, so a powerplant failure (stall, ingestion, etc.) is still a possibility.
>> yes that is a fire station just off the skid path, (No. 4 on the diagram)and yes it was manned, and yes it responded within seconds due to the proximity. That plus the fact that the plane was well below V-speeds gets credit for the low number and severity of injuries.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TheMessenger
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 8
Assuming the Right engine failed prior to V1;
The Left engine still producing thrust would have caused the plane to yaw to the RIGHT requiring left rudder and possibly left brake to compensate.
As the pilot applied reverse thrust during the abort, the operating left engine would now produce a yaw to the LEFT.
If the pilot did not then apply RIGHT rudder and/or the RIGHT brake, the result would be the aircraft departing the runway to the left.
If the Pilot applied the right brake and it failed, it would have the same result.
How about not assuming anything and letting the facts speak for themselves?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 8
Assuming the Right engine failed prior to V1;
The Left engine still producing thrust would have caused the plane to yaw to the RIGHT requiring left rudder and possibly left brake to compensate.
As the pilot applied reverse thrust during the abort, the operating left engine would now produce a yaw to the LEFT.
If the pilot did not then apply RIGHT rudder and/or the RIGHT brake, the result would be the aircraft departing the runway to the left.
If the Pilot applied the right brake and it failed, it would have the same result.
How about not assuming anything and letting the facts speak for themselves?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dallas TX, USA
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take your bags or leave them?
Lots of defensive PAX comments in the Newsweek thread regarding PAX taking their bags with them. Seems that's a definite safety hazard to me.
The Newsweek article, nicely written by the way.
A Flight 1404 Passenger Describes the Crash | Newsweek National News | Newsweek.com
Comments, mostly about bags
A Flight 1404 Passenger Describes the Crash | Newsweek National News | Newsweek.com
The Newsweek article, nicely written by the way.
A Flight 1404 Passenger Describes the Crash | Newsweek National News | Newsweek.com
Comments, mostly about bags
A Flight 1404 Passenger Describes the Crash | Newsweek National News | Newsweek.com
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
misd-agin
Isn’t the purpose of this forum to speculate about aircraft incidents?
Do you caution EVERYONE on PPRUNE against speculating?
You are right about one thing. I shouldn’t have used the word Assuming.
My post should have been:
Passengers onboard the aircraft told The Associated Press the aircraft's nose raised into the air, then dropped suddenly back down before the aircraft exited the runway, its right wing on fire.
If the RIGHT engine failed, the Left engine still producing thrust would have caused the plane to yaw to the RIGHT requiring left rudder and possibly left brake to compensate.
As the pilot applied reverse thrust during the abort, the operating left engine would now produce a yaw to the LEFT.
If the pilot did not then apply RIGHT rudder and/or the RIGHT brake, the result would be the aircraft departing the runway to the left.
Isn’t the purpose of this forum to speculate about aircraft incidents?
Do you caution EVERYONE on PPRUNE against speculating?
You are right about one thing. I shouldn’t have used the word Assuming.
My post should have been:
Passengers onboard the aircraft told The Associated Press the aircraft's nose raised into the air, then dropped suddenly back down before the aircraft exited the runway, its right wing on fire.
If the RIGHT engine failed, the Left engine still producing thrust would have caused the plane to yaw to the RIGHT requiring left rudder and possibly left brake to compensate.
As the pilot applied reverse thrust during the abort, the operating left engine would now produce a yaw to the LEFT.
If the pilot did not then apply RIGHT rudder and/or the RIGHT brake, the result would be the aircraft departing the runway to the left.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Germany
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the dark area on the right-hand stabilizer? Can be seen on Pics #3/5 of the slideshow.
The sunlight is coming from behind the aircraft, so it doesn't seem to be the fin's shadow. Looks rather like something is protruding the upper surface of the stabilizer?
Season's Greetings, MAX
The sunlight is coming from behind the aircraft, so it doesn't seem to be the fin's shadow. Looks rather like something is protruding the upper surface of the stabilizer?
Season's Greetings, MAX
Guest
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere between E17487 and F75775
Age: 80
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crosswind Limitations on Takeoff
As far as I can see nobody posted the answer to earlier queries on takeoff crosswind limitations. What I have is:
3/4/500
Runway
Dry 40kt
Wet 40kt
Snow - not melting 35kt
Standing water or slush 20kt
Ice - not melting 17kt
NG
Runway
Dry 36kt*
Wet 25kt
Snow - not melting 25kts
Standing water or slush 15kt
Ice - not melting 15kt
* reduced to 34kt with winglets
3/4/500
Runway
Dry 40kt
Wet 40kt
Snow - not melting 35kt
Standing water or slush 20kt
Ice - not melting 17kt
NG
Runway
Dry 36kt*
Wet 25kt
Snow - not melting 25kts
Standing water or slush 15kt
Ice - not melting 15kt
* reduced to 34kt with winglets
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Nomad
Age: 43
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flap Extension
For those that are assuming that the flap were not extended for T/O, I raise the point "The crew should have heard the aural T/O Configugration Warning going blasting away" if the flap were not selected for T/O. Only a deaf and sucidal person would disregard such critical warning.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dorset
Age: 52
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pax live-blogging from crashsite!
This should become an interesting phenomena over time, as long as the writer is vaguely literate and rational:
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/12/...er-plane-crash
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/12/...er-plane-crash
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could point into direction of power loss with rejected takeoff, aka engine failure with RTO brake application trouble. Only one side applied...from what i have "heard" so far.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Antipodes Islands
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trajectory Analysis
If you look at the aerial shot from Denver plane skids off runway - Yahoo! News Photos
See image 14 of 34
You will notice some quite distinct phases of the incident.
At the start there is a linear departure from the runway. That is whatever caused the aircraft to depart to the left had occurred a way back on the runway. Whatever it was did not cause further deviation. The aircraft kept going in a straight line. (This would tend to reject theories about differential braking/thrust)
Shortly after leaving the runway the aircraft starts into a radius turn to the left. Causes for this could be as simple as higher drag on the left hand side - perhaps deeper snow on the left?
A little while later the aircraft crosses taxiway WC and possibly straightens up. Definitely a short while later it loses its undercarriage (note the widening of the track) and commences a straight run to its stopping point.
My theory is that a single catastrophic incident occurred on the runway causing an immediate turn left. There was no further dynamic effects until the aircraft encountered snow/terrain. At this stage either the crew started braking with faulty brakes or the differential drag from the terrain caused the curve. Finally, the undercarriage was sheared off and the aircraft continued in a straight line till it stopped.
See image 14 of 34
You will notice some quite distinct phases of the incident.
At the start there is a linear departure from the runway. That is whatever caused the aircraft to depart to the left had occurred a way back on the runway. Whatever it was did not cause further deviation. The aircraft kept going in a straight line. (This would tend to reject theories about differential braking/thrust)
Shortly after leaving the runway the aircraft starts into a radius turn to the left. Causes for this could be as simple as higher drag on the left hand side - perhaps deeper snow on the left?
A little while later the aircraft crosses taxiway WC and possibly straightens up. Definitely a short while later it loses its undercarriage (note the widening of the track) and commences a straight run to its stopping point.
My theory is that a single catastrophic incident occurred on the runway causing an immediate turn left. There was no further dynamic effects until the aircraft encountered snow/terrain. At this stage either the crew started braking with faulty brakes or the differential drag from the terrain caused the curve. Finally, the undercarriage was sheared off and the aircraft continued in a straight line till it stopped.
Last edited by Mahatma Kote; 22nd Dec 2008 at 17:18. Reason: change access road to taxiway WC
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume most of the injuries and "broken bones" happened when people hit the ground trying to get away from the plane.
Just so people not flying the B737 know, the procedure for a passenger evacuation is to extend the flaps fully (Flap 40) so that any one escaping via the overwing exits can follow the arrows and slide down the back of the wing.
However I doubt that the crew would have been able to extend the flaps any more than they already were as neither engine would have been running so there would have been no hydraulic pumps working. In fact I'm sure the hydraulic systems would have been severed with total pressure loss.
Either way, the flaps were staying just as they were before the accident happened.
However I doubt that the crew would have been able to extend the flaps any more than they already were as neither engine would have been running so there would have been no hydraulic pumps working. In fact I'm sure the hydraulic systems would have been severed with total pressure loss.
Either way, the flaps were staying just as they were before the accident happened.
Just so people not flying the B737 know, the procedure for a passenger evacuation is to extend the flaps fully (Flap 40) so that any one escaping via the overwing exits can follow the arrows and slide down the back of the wing
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: KIAD east downwind
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mahatma Kote, just a little correction - the widening of the track happens after the aircraft crossed taxiway WC and jumped what seems to be a ditch. And after the service road, it seems to have plowed the snow completely on its belly.
(Note the structure next to the taxiway - it's a fire station)
Another view of the locale:
(Note the structure next to the taxiway - it's a fire station)
Another view of the locale:
Last edited by dvv; 22nd Dec 2008 at 13:13.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winds from Metars
From Patternisfull:
Landed in DEN 5 minutes before
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We were pax on a flight that touched down at 6:10. Tower gave weather confirming the winds someone listed above - 220 @ 20 gusting high 30s.
For the main rways 35 L/R and 34 L/R that's a quartering tailwind.
You're mistaken as to the winds. There wasn't a tailwind component.
KDEN 210053Z 28011KT 10SM FEW040 SCT100 M06/M16 A2997 RMK AO2 PK WND 29027/0000 SLP202 T10561161
KDEN 210134Z 29024G32KT 10SM FEW040 SCT100 M04/M18 A2998 RMK AO2 PK WND 28036/0123
Landed in DEN 5 minutes before
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We were pax on a flight that touched down at 6:10. Tower gave weather confirming the winds someone listed above - 220 @ 20 gusting high 30s.
For the main rways 35 L/R and 34 L/R that's a quartering tailwind.
You're mistaken as to the winds. There wasn't a tailwind component.
KDEN 210053Z 28011KT 10SM FEW040 SCT100 M06/M16 A2997 RMK AO2 PK WND 29027/0000 SLP202 T10561161
KDEN 210134Z 29024G32KT 10SM FEW040 SCT100 M04/M18 A2998 RMK AO2 PK WND 28036/0123
Last edited by skyken; 22nd Dec 2008 at 13:04. Reason: reference