Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Honduras plane crash

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Honduras plane crash

Old 24th Feb 2011, 15:06
  #41 (permalink)  
dvv
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: KIAD east downwind
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
aterpster, floating down half the runway length is never good — be it Toncontín, Kingston, Chicago Midway, or, for that matter, Toronto Pearson. Neither is not retarding your throttle upon landing — be it Congonhas or Irkutsk.
dvv is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2011, 16:06
  #42 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No doubt about it. Nonetheless, the more difficult the terrain and runway environment, the greater the opportunity for disaster.
aterpster is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2011, 21:35
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Our procedure was if you were not down by the first taxiway off the runway which was 700 ft from the threshold, go around. We never had to because we made sure that happened. Yes that 737 video shows how close they came to going off the cliff. Wet runways reduced landing weight depending on the wind. Some days we couldn't land wet so had to reduce our load before takeoff.

Fuel was expensive there so ferrying fuel in was common if expected conditions were dry runways. Once they removed 25 passengers from boarding because of possible rain showers and a United jumpseater was told he couldn't board. I called the dispatcher and said I have flown there for years and that is the normal forecast and it always ends up dry so they loaded everybody up and had an uneventful flight. He was a new guy so was being ultra conservative.

The agent made a nasty phone call to our chief pilot saying I was being pushy but all I did is let all my passengers and jumpseating pilot get to TGU. Of coarse it was dry and everybody but that agent was happy.

Last edited by bubbers44; 24th Feb 2011 at 21:43. Reason: spelling
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2011, 22:01
  #44 (permalink)  
dvv
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: KIAD east downwind
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
aterpster, my points are:
  1. the Congonhas crash is not a good example of a short runway contributing much to the crash — it was the no.2 engine left in the CL detente that pulled the aircraft off the runway. A very similar crash happened in Irkutsk on a runway twice as long, in a much better weather and in a much more forgiving terrain. Besides, I couldn't find any indication in the Congonhas report that the aircraft overshoot the touchdown zone.
  2. The overrun crashes I mentioned illustrate that even long runways and very flat terrain are not much of a help when the aircraft significantly overshoots the touchdown zone.
It's the same old moral — good skills and airmanship are much more important than peculiarities of a particular airfield.
dvv is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2011, 23:28
  #45 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
dvv:

It's the same old moral — good skills and airmanship are much more important than peculiarities of a particular airfield.
No argument there.
aterpster is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2011, 01:15
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree, unfortunately the Sao Paulo crash had a reverser problem on one side and the computer wouldn't let the pilots do what they wanted. Too much automation can do this.



s
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2011, 03:06
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
unfortunately the Sao Paulo crash had a reverser problem on one side and the computer wouldn't let the pilots do what they wanted. Too much automation can do this.
Bubbers 44

Completely wrong!

They did not have a reverser problem, it was locked out prior to dispatch. IF they had closed BOTH thrust levers, as any pilot normally does to LAND, then they would have been okay. It was not the automation, it was pilot skills.

There is no point in telling you this though as you are such a hero.

Wet runways reduced landing weight depending on the wind. Some days we couldn't land wet so had to reduce our load before takeoff.
I called the dispatcher and said I have flown there for years and that is the normal forecast and it always ends up dry so they loaded everybody up and had an uneventful flight. He was a new guy so was being ultra conservative.
The agent made a nasty phone call to our chief pilot saying I was being pushy but all I did is let all my passengers and jumpseating pilot get to TGU. Of coarse it was dry and everybody but that agent was happy.
Must be great to be such an all knowing pilot!
iceman50 is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2011, 04:44
  #48 (permalink)  
dvv
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: KIAD east downwind
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
bubbers44, in the São Paulo crash, the computer did exactly what it was commanded to do. Unless, of course, you're talking about a São Paulo crash different from the one we've been discussing here so far.
dvv is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2011, 08:39
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

Hi,
OT
In the CENIPA final report about the crash (São Paulo crash)
The concept of the automation in the A-320 does not always allow the pilot to know exactly how the operations are being performed by the system.

To note:
RESA can be also a great help (no one at Sao Paulo)

jcjeant is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2011, 10:37
  #50 (permalink)  
PPRuNe supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There's no use arguing with the pundants when it comes to how the Airbus works, the architecture of the airplane had nothing to do with the accident in Sao Paolo.
Dream Land is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2011, 11:59
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, the reverser was locked out, but the logic in the computer wouldn't allow the pilot to manually deploy the spoilers and stop because he didn't get that thrust lever back to idle. What normally would have been a small mistake became a major one because of the automation.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2011, 12:15
  #52 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by b44
wouldn't allow the pilot to manually deploy the spoilers
- I'm pretty sure we discovered there is NO way to 'manually deploy' ground spoilers in the AB. Only the 'system' will do it for you when throttles are closed as I understand it.
BOAC is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2011, 12:51
  #53 (permalink)  
PPRuNe supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bubber44, the pilot didn't reduce the thrust lever on one of the engines, it had nothing to do with automation, let's pretend it happened on your 757 in Honduras, you land and only reduce one thrust lever and Manually deploy the ground spoilers, what chance do you think you have of keeping the aircraft on the runway?
Dream Land is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2011, 16:58
  #54 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: VA, USA
Age: 58
Posts: 578
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Boys and girls - please can we put the lid back on the automation argument?

There is no link to any question of automation being the issue in the subject of this thread.

This aircraft did not land long or have any issue with thrust reverse symmetrically applied or otherwise... can we leave it at that now?

The question should be what can we (as an industry) learn from the accident and hopefully do better in the future. Right now we're doing none of that at all.

OK - down from high horse.....

- GY
GarageYears is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2011, 17:12
  #55 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You have my apologies, GY, for allowing myself to be seduced 'off thread' from around #39/40 on.....................
BOAC is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2011, 19:40
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Colonies
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There's no use arguing with the pundants when it comes to how the Airbus works, the architecture of the airplane had nothing to do with the accident in Sao Paolo.
The crew's incomplete understanding of the ground logic directly contributed to this accident.
Capi_Cafre' is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2011, 09:02
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Capi_Cafre' . . . [TAM at CGH]

The crew's incomplete understanding of the ground logic directly contributed to this accident.
Oh, please, Capi_Cafre'. It is elementary, universal, instinctive reaction in any aircraft anywhere, learned from day 1 in flight school. . . that upon touchdown, the flying pilot must retard/close/pull-back the thrust lever(s) in order to stop! Nothing to do with ground logic/automation to keep the flying pilot from having his paw on all thrust levers and pulling back. Even during CAT-3B fully coupled A/T approach and landing, the flying pilot will be guarding the thrust levers. This idiotic accident was caused by a mix of complacency and temporary insanity.
GlueBall is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 01:07
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Memory loss and temporary insanity might have contributed to this accident. I think protecting the right reverser and not reversing the right engine because the reverser was locked out might have had more to do with their failure to bring the right engine to idle. Maybe they were concerned about bringing the right engine into reverse so left it out of idle position. They just screwed up.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 01:12
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But I could be completely wrong too..
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 06:00
  #60 (permalink)  
PPRuNe supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They just screwed up
This statement is correct!

Cheers, D.L.

One must attend Airbus 101 before debating Airbus accidents.
Dream Land is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.