American Airlines jet goes off runway in Jackson Hole, Wyoming
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the very first Boeing 737's were later called the -100 (only after the 200 came about).
I saw one in Continental colors at KDCA and when they went in reverse, the plane ligtened on the gear/oleo struts.
I also think the later 200's canted/angled the thrust reversers to avoid the strike.
The DC9 I flew could easily deploy thrust reversers while nose up (or illegally inflight) but it was always encouraged to have the nosewheel firmly on the ground.
I saw one in Continental colors at KDCA and when they went in reverse, the plane ligtened on the gear/oleo struts.
I also think the later 200's canted/angled the thrust reversers to avoid the strike.
The DC9 I flew could easily deploy thrust reversers while nose up (or illegally inflight) but it was always encouraged to have the nosewheel firmly on the ground.
Tu 154 and Il 62 can do that (reverser inflight)
Photo Album: "The Best Of... [Reverse in flight]" | Airliners.net
Photo Album: "The Best Of... [Reverse in flight]" | Airliners.net
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Somewhere else
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC-8s had certificated in-flight reversers.
The B-757 is better on short fields than B737/A320 because it has greater stopping capability with double the braking wheels. ATA and others operated 75s into Midway for many years without going off the end. Southwest? Not so many.
In any case, no one lands on any field without the data to support it. When you're landing at high altitude, high terrain, short field, marginal weather airports - no matter what you're flying - bring your A game.
The B-757 is better on short fields than B737/A320 because it has greater stopping capability with double the braking wheels. ATA and others operated 75s into Midway for many years without going off the end. Southwest? Not so many.
In any case, no one lands on any field without the data to support it. When you're landing at high altitude, high terrain, short field, marginal weather airports - no matter what you're flying - bring your A game.
The DC-8, C-5, C-17 all have/had in-flight reverse thrust. The C-17 can, as I understand it, with spoilers and reverse, go from FL 250 to the runway in one 360 descending turn.
Totally, unrelated, as is any in-flight T/R, to the landing problem in B757 at KJAC
Totally, unrelated, as is any in-flight T/R, to the landing problem in B757 at KJAC
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still think if you look at the video and any post here you will find the spoilers not deploying can not be verified because of the angle of the camera. The video came to the edge of the spoilers but didn't show the spoilers. The NTSB report will hopefully clarify this. It isn't that important because when reverse was finally sucessful spoilers would have automatically deployed. The video didn't show it. I think the left side of the video was within inches of the spoilers but they were not displayed.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East of There
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frame grab from the video:
Link (originally posted by Echo Kilo) to photo for comparison:
Photos: Boeing 757-223 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Comparing the two, it appears to me that the spoilers should be visible in the video frame, if they were deployed.
(Also note that the reverser is almost fully deployed by this frame.)
Link (originally posted by Echo Kilo) to photo for comparison:
Photos: Boeing 757-223 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Comparing the two, it appears to me that the spoilers should be visible in the video frame, if they were deployed.
(Also note that the reverser is almost fully deployed by this frame.)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a swept wing and if you look forward just inboard of the second slat you will notice that the spoiler isn't in the video. I think the video is no help but the NTSB report will tell the story.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East of There
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a swept wing and if you look forward just inboard of the second slat you will notice that the spoiler isn't in the video.
It can't be "forward" as in fore/aft on the plane, as that would be ahead of the wing....
I'm comparing this frame to the photo (which clearly shows the spoilers.)
There are 4 slats between the engine pylon and the wingtip. In the photo, the outboard end of the outboard spoiler is almost dead even with the outboard end of the second slat (outboard of the pylon.)
That end of the slat is difficult to discern on the video frame, but I can see it on an HD monitor... and looking directly aft of that point, there is still a large section of the trailing edge of the wing visible where the spoilers should be. I don't see them.
I also see that the wing in the video is pitched farther forward than that in the photo (note the angle of the engine pylon for comparison.) That should make the spoilers even more evident.
As you say, the report will tell the story... but then why discuss the incident at all, if we're just going to wait for the report?!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the new picture of the left wing I think possibly the video should have shown spoiler deployment. I don't think with reversers the spoilers couldn't be out. They are automatic even if not armed. I guess we will have to wait.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Age: 71
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no maybe at all about the frame grab from the landing video; and several other frames during the video. If the ground spoilers were deployed on the left wing in the frame grab, they would be visible.
At the point shown, near the north end of the terminal, there is about 2,000 or less feet to the end of the runway.
At the point shown, near the north end of the terminal, there is about 2,000 or less feet to the end of the runway.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Melbourne, ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Age: 74
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely it is very clear spoilers are not observed at any point on the video and it should be possible to see them if they were deployed. Ergo they didn't deploy - not automatically, not manually and not with the eventual application of reverse thrust. There, I've said it (now ducking for incoming). Hence braking not as effective as it should have been. Now waiting for investigation to find out why spoilers did not deploy and why reverse thrust, which would have also helped, both seem to have malfunctioned.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At our airline, we had a mishap with the 737 spoiler system. The spoilers deployed on landing normally, and the handle was placed in the stowed/retracted/down position after turning off the runway.
Trouble was, the spoilers did not retract. The plane was going out again and even though the copilot did a walk around, he could not see the spoilers deployed. There was no indication in the cockpit that the spoilers were still deployed.
Fortunately, there was a deadheading crew which observed the spoilers from the cabin and communicated it to the cockpit in time.
The cable from the spoiler handle had broken just before attempted stowing after landing.
the handle was in the correct place, but didn't do anything.
is it possible the pilots attempted to deploy spoilers on this plane and moved the handle to no avail, or warning of failure?
Trouble was, the spoilers did not retract. The plane was going out again and even though the copilot did a walk around, he could not see the spoilers deployed. There was no indication in the cockpit that the spoilers were still deployed.
Fortunately, there was a deadheading crew which observed the spoilers from the cabin and communicated it to the cockpit in time.
The cable from the spoiler handle had broken just before attempted stowing after landing.
the handle was in the correct place, but didn't do anything.
is it possible the pilots attempted to deploy spoilers on this plane and moved the handle to no avail, or warning of failure?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 44836 58th st., Preston, Ia 52069
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SKS777
Holy Smokes. Your observation drives home the point of engineer and pilot perceptions.
The aircraft engineer believes that the pilot is really trying to screw up his beautiful creation.
All the while, the pilot truly believes that the engineer's beautiful creation is, in reality, trying to kill him...
The aircraft engineer believes that the pilot is really trying to screw up his beautiful creation.
All the while, the pilot truly believes that the engineer's beautiful creation is, in reality, trying to kill him...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The plane was going out again and even though the copilot did a walk around, he could not see the spoilers deployed.
You can easily see the upper surface of the wing from under the tail of the '75 as I recall.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
yes, but the plane in question was a 737
I've certainly forgotten to stow the 'brakes after landing, coasted into rock star parking near the high speed turnoff overseas and had the mechanic gently remind me when he plugged in to tell me I was chocked.