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

US Air PHL

Old 15th Mar 2014, 17:54
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The incident aircraft was already 30-50 feet in the air. So much so that the tower controller issued take off clearance to the aircraft that was already lined up and waiting on the same runway. Incident aircraft touched back down and bounced up then landed nose gear first hence gear collapse. 2nd aircraft reported to tower that something was happening on the runway in front of them and decided not to take off.
iskyfly is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2014, 20:57
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
airborne....?

If that's true...20-30' in the air...... it doesn't matter whose decision ( C/O or F/O) it was. It just ain't gonna work!
jboe is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2014, 23:43
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Somewhere out there...
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Certainly on the later generation Airbus FBW aircraft, there is a bounced landing mode, where the aircraft deploys the spoilers after the second bounce. This is to positively make sure that the aircraft lands, although the outcome can be a severe hard landing - the lift is effectively destroyed.
I investigated a severe hard landing where the pilot had been completely taken aback by this function -the aircraft dropped like a stone from about 10 feet. The aircraft behaved as per design, but it took the PF completely by surprise.

It is possible that there was severe vibration from the NLG during rotation as the nosewheels left the ground (I am aware of this happening, and being particularly startling as the NLG attachments are effectively under the cockpit floor). That could possibly have given a 'surprise' to the crew at a critical point.
Busbert is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2014, 00:41
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,610
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 11 Posts
Update 6:30pm - emergency vehicles told to take care due to # of people walking around, probably thinking of the Asiana SFO incident where someone was run over.
Whatever is wrong with US emergency crews that they have to be cautioned by ATC in this statement-of-the-blindingly-obvious manner, feeling that otherwise you get "San Francisco" incidents. Even third world countries train fully and adequately for this.
WHBM is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2014, 02:42
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So, what does the Airbus FCOM say about a blown tire (tyre) on takeoff?
And, what is the USAirways SOP say?
PantLoad is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2014, 13:40
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South, near the end of the world.
Age: 50
Posts: 285
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
A320 FCTM ABN

DECISION MAKING:
"If a tire fails within 20 knots of V1, unless debris of the tire has caused noticeable engine parameters fluctuations, it is better to get airborne,..."
AO-020 P 2/22 17 ABR 2013
cosmiccomet is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2014, 13:58
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quote:
Update 6:30pm - emergency vehicles told to take care due to # of people walking around, probably thinking of the Asiana SFO incident where someone was run over.
Whatever is wrong with US emergency crews that they have to be cautioned by ATC in this statement-of-the-blindingly-obvious manner, feeling that otherwise you get "San Francisco" incidents. Even third world countries train fully and adequately for this.
We're becoming a nanny state like many of the countries in Europe. People are dumbing down while government overreach is dumbing up.
Desert185 is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2014, 20:31
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 878
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I can't wait to hear more on this accident especially some real data.

I want to know if it did indeed get to 50 feet in the air before someone decided to "Reject".
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2014, 21:58
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,449
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
See ‘Rejecting after V1; why does it still happen?’, note the incident on page 15.
safetypee is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 16:00
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 67
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We're becoming a nanny state like many of the countries in Europe. People are dumbing down while government overreach is dumbing up.
I think this falls closer to "crew resource management" than government overreaching.

What's wrong with someone pointing out a potential threat in a high stress situation?

Last edited by inchman254; 17th Mar 2014 at 19:02. Reason: quote added
inchman254 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2014, 16:50
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 878
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Anymore news on this accident.

I'd like to hear factual info on what happened here.

Find it hard to believe no news as come out yet from anyone including the FAA or NTSB.

Kind of fed up of the "Merry Go round" of MH370 with all its speculations and yet this accident should be even more interesting.
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2014, 19:14
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AIN Notices Report


"AIRCRAFT ABORTED TAKE OFF DUE TO SMOKE IN THE NUMBER ONE ENGINE. AFTER THE NOSE TIRE TOUCHED DOWN, THE NOSE GEAR COLLAPSED, PHILADELPHIA, PA."
iskyfly is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2014, 20:15
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by iskyfly
"AIRCRAFT ABORTED TAKE OFF DUE TO SMOKE IN THE NUMBER ONE ENGINE. AFTER THE NOSE TIRE TOUCHED DOWN, THE NOSE GEAR COLLAPSED, PHILADELPHIA, PA."
I have two questions....

How did the crew know there was smoke in the #1 engine?

Why did they reject after V1?
Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2014, 20:27
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 878
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
In reply to iskyfly...

The AIN report doesn't give any new info or especially any new/official details.

I'm curious to know if the aircraft was indeed airborne (30 to 50 feet in the air) when someone decided to "reject" the takeoff and slam it back down on the runway.
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 01:16
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NASA has had video for launches for decades. One could watch any number of camera angles replayed on the NASA channel in the states.

BTW KPHL winds 360/10G18. Straight X-wind.
Obama57 is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 19:16
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Disregarding for a moment the issues with:
a. RTO decision making &

b. ASDA

..... THIS IS AN AIRBUS!

Several things happen when the
jet is in Landing Mode.
As mentioned above there are both partial spoiler
and full spoiler deflection capabilities and also once the ground air switch is
made only 50% roll control is available.

This A320 was not in LAND mode
it was in TAKE-OFF mode.

The computer can let you do lots of this but
it also restricts you from many things too.

After they got airborne the
jet blends into flight mode.
The spoilers are disarmed & therefore the
will not auto deploy when you land again.
The jet is trying to fly, it is
not subject to the flight control laws as landing as F3 or F4 is not selected.


Trying to reject after airborne in an Airbus is very very hard to fly
because the aircraft is delighting you all the way!
Correct me if I am wrong, my understanding of airbus modes are;

Ground Mode
Flight Mode
Flare Mode

I find no reference to "LAND(ing)" mode and "TAKE-OFF" mode as mentioned in the quote above.
iskyfly is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2014, 18:54
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 48
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by crashmanII

I'll make sure I introduce myself before the door closes---because I've been on two of them. Last summer's LaGuardia nosedive and another SWA flight where a football sized hole blew into the top of the airplane at 35k ft., instantly depressurizing the airplane.

With regards to comments about taking hand luggage off the airplane in these situations, we were on the runway at LaGuardia for several minutes before they opened the doors and started exiting the airplane via the slides. (And, IMO, the FAs did a very poor job of handling that entire situation---virtually no commands, no positive reinforcement, nothing. I was in an exit row beside the door waiting on their command--none came. Even after I asked loudly but calmly for their guidance. Conversely, the SWA FAs on the other flight were fantastic, moving from person to person down the aisles quickly but methodically--looking each passenger in the eyes with confidence to make sure everyone had oxygen masks on and working. And continued the reassurance until the plane landed 20-30 minutes later.)

We had plenty of time just waiting on the LGA flight to grab a computer bag or handbag. I didn't see anyone trying to get their luggage out, but smaller bags simply didn't hold anyone up. (All the while the smell of smoke was getting stronger.)

With regards to getting our luggage back, we waited several hours in the terminal for NTSB interviews and still didn't get our luggage. I finally had mine shipped to me about 4 days later. I read where one passenger, who left his laptop bag on the plane, had it stolen.

After the first flight, I reassured myself that lightning never strikes twice and I would never encounter another. After the second incident, I only fly if I absolutely have to and it's not a pleasurable experience anymore.
Damn, Bubba, you're bad luck....
flyboyike is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2014, 18:57
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Al sur del norte
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Incredible, looks like they took off without entering V-speeds, ignored warnings, didn't select TOGA and then aborted after being airborne! Could have been a lot worse! The plane is a W/O.

Pilots played role in US Airways 1702 crash: FAA - 12/12/2014 - Flight Global
Silvio Pettirossi is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2014, 19:47
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,050
Received 252 Likes on 163 Posts
The computer needed those values to calculate takeoff power, and required their re-entry after a runway change.
At the risk of sounding like an old fart, I was under the impression that one has to know performance information like this before one takes off. The person needs to know this, whether or not the computer calculates it.
However, on reading this thread, it is interesting to learn that the aircraft and its automated systems has cascading/linked dependencies on certain data (take off data being pretty critical when flying heavies, eh?) so it isn't (upon reflection) surprising that the systems sent out alerts due to the data not being found as the algorithm's logic "expected" it to be.
Not a bad feature, in a general sense, given how much automation has been integrated into the various aircraft systems, but ...
a) who's in charge here?
b) how well does one know one's aircraft?

*return to lurk mode*
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2014, 21:53
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
When it reached 80kt, an audible warning sounded “retard, retard, retard”, instructing the pilots to idle the throttles, the FAA report says. The first officer told the captain she had never heard that warning during take-off. “We’ll get that straight when we get airborne,” the captain responded.
Wow, its been a long time since I've flown a 'bus but I find it hard to believe a crew would ignore a takeoff warning at 80 knots.

Maybe 25 years ago in the '72 you might pull a breaker to cancel a warning on the takeoff roll if you were sure it was spurious. As several crashes have proven, this was not a good idea even back then.

But these days, every warning and message is logged 'for maintenance' and increasingly this 'de-identified safety data collection' will catch up with you.

I've done rejects (low speed) and go-arounds for procedural reasons in the modern era even though I 'knew' the gear was really down or the pack would reset in the climb. What used to be considered operational judgment based on experience and systems knowledge has evolved into CYA read the steps from the QRH into the CVR. And then write the fault into the logbook with the correct secret code numbers and letters from the FRM with cites from the FCOM as required.

Anyway, any A320 drivers know if the plane would have flown OK if the throttles (or whatever they are called on a 'bus) were put in TOGA position at the initial warning ding? Or, would they still have the 'retard' message at 80 knots since the thrust data was not input?
Airbubba is offline  

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.