Aeromexico Crash
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salzburg
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting that, more than a month after the event, we are still seeing reports that it was an RTO gone wrong, despite there being no evidence to support that assertion.
Accident: Aeromexico Connect E190 at Durango on Jul 31st 2018, veered off and overran runway after rejected takeoff and burst into flames
Accident: Aeromexico Connect E190 at Durango on Jul 31st 2018, veered off and overran runway after rejected takeoff and burst into flames
What options were left when the aircraft couldn't fly?
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rejecting a takeoff is somewhat of an active decision, is it not? This case seems more like a crash shortly after takeoff.
But i guess it's a question of definition really. So it's just an astonishment that you would label it something that does not fit what one might call an RTO.
Why not discuss the definition instead of throwing labels at each other? Oh what do i say continue it's the internet after all
But i guess it's a question of definition really. So it's just an astonishment that you would label it something that does not fit what one might call an RTO.
Why not discuss the definition instead of throwing labels at each other? Oh what do i say continue it's the internet after all
If in the outflow of a microburst, loss of lift will put your heart in your mouth. With a newbie at the helm, the LHS may have initiated corrective action in concert with “my aircraft...” Gear retracting? Why does that not fit RTO? It’s in the timing, and once in the blender, things can get interesting, no? Was there Rotate call out? If they were descending without stick, no one would initiate (or maintain) an initial climb. Flameout, loss of lift, gear coming up? Thank God they were able to control the outcome such that no one died. Look at the last part of the video, before the upset and the screaming? It settled onto its belly. Doesn’t that suggest some minimum amount of control?
ready to abandon my conjecture. I haven’t rejected any other proposal....
By the way. There may have not been an RTO. The crash may have been unrelated to their intentions, expressed or implied? It may have been “Rejected Climb Out”, is Mother Nature on the CVR?
ready to abandon my conjecture. I haven’t rejected any other proposal....
By the way. There may have not been an RTO. The crash may have been unrelated to their intentions, expressed or implied? It may have been “Rejected Climb Out”, is Mother Nature on the CVR?
I'd suggest that the absence of engine noise might be due to the absence of the engines by that point ... 
Given that the intact, detached engines have been available to investigators for several weeks, I think we'd know by now if a reverser had been deployed on either/both before they departed the wing.
Given that the intact, detached engines have been available to investigators for several weeks, I think we'd know by now if a reverser had been deployed on either/both before they departed the wing.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently the #1 engine touched the paved side of the RW after a sudden wind (see report).
In fact, this was the FIRST ground contact.
#2 engine left a little after, possibly due to some unbalance
The fuselage ground contact happened about 600 metres (2000 ft) AFTER the #2 engine was lost on the RW.
BOTH ENGINES are pictured in the scenario (preliminary report).
The same report shows NO TRACE OF DEPLOYED REVERSERS.
Last edited by guadaMB; 6th Sep 2018 at 20:25. Reason: correcting a figure
In fact, in the absence of any reported evidence, I'm not suggesting that the pilots deployed reversers at all. Are you ?
Yes, either of those is possible. Neither scenario fits the ICAO definition (or indeed any generally accepted definition) of an RTO. I stand by my comments.
No, and no.
In fact, in the absence of any reported evidence, I'm not suggesting that the pilots deployed reversers at all. Are you ?
No, and no.
In fact, in the absence of any reported evidence, I'm not suggesting that the pilots deployed reversers at all. Are you ?
I am pretty sure we are talking around each other. No harm no foul.
Simply that had it been an RTO in the accepted sense (i.e. before V1, or failing that, at least before VR), then it would be reasonable to find evidence of deployed reversers.
We appear to be agreed that no such evidence has emerged as yet, and probably would have by now had that been the case.
We appear to be agreed that no such evidence has emerged as yet, and probably would have by now had that been the case.
Had they been deployed at all, it would have been prior to, or after, launch. Neither seems plausible. If the gear was in transit, (Other than down, locked) that is enough evidence for me. After hitting the ground, well, the circuits were, um, “discontinuous”?
At what point was the aircraft in any shape to commmand “gear up”?
At what point was the aircraft in any shape to commmand “gear up”?
Last edited by Concours77; 6th Sep 2018 at 21:59.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had they been deployed at all, it would have been prior to, or after, launch. Neither seems plausible. If the gear was in transit, (Other than down, locked) that is enough evidence for me. After hitting the ground, well, the circuits were, um, “discontinuous”?
At what point was the aircraft in any shape to commmand “gear up”?
At what point was the aircraft in any shape to commmand “gear up”?
Recordings (CVR) aren't published, but in the report both GEARS appear DOWN & LOCKED until the last second at 20:22:55 (UTC) in which could be interpreted as both were being unlocked and beginning to "go up". Page 27 of preliminary report.
At that moment, both engines rested about 300 metres back...
What is the basis of the finding? (Down and Locked)? What is “selected” with both engines off wing and a thousand feet behind suggests what? If the gear was not in transit ever, then reverse may have been selected. I submit only that having the whole of the a/c path visible to us, I see no point at which gear or reversers would (should) be touched.
Recordings (CVR) aren't published, but in the report both GEARS appear DOWN & LOCKED until the last second at 20:22:55 (UTC) in which could be interpreted as both were being unlocked and beginning to "go up". Page 27 of preliminary report.
At that moment, both engines rested about 300 metres back...
At that moment, both engines rested about 300 metres back...
We know where the engines ended up and we can deduce approximately where they were torn off (more accurately in the case of No 1 engine because of the marks on the tarmac).
But how are you relating that to the timeline in the FDR readout ? We can see that the gear was selected up at some point between 20:22:50 and 20:22:52, at which point the aircraft had rotated and was between 5' and 15' above the runway.
I can't see any charts in the FDR readout that show the horizontal position of the aircraft vs time.
You can pull the throttles to idle and select the reverse levers to 'deploy' at any time - even at 39k (there is a mechanical interlock that will prevent moving the reverse levers from 'stow' if the throttles are above idle'). BUT, nothing will happen with regard to the reversers unless 'weight on wheels' (WOW) is true.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding my earlier post about thrust settings:
75 degrees thrust lever angle is TO/GA at least according to:
http://aviationconsultantsworldwide.com/E190Engines.pdf
75 degrees was set and constant according to the FDR readout in the preliminary report.
Also there is a reserve power setting that is automatically activated for wind shear, engine failure or by placing the thrust levers at 85 degrees.
75 degrees thrust lever angle is TO/GA at least according to:
http://aviationconsultantsworldwide.com/E190Engines.pdf
75 degrees was set and constant according to the FDR readout in the preliminary report.
Also there is a reserve power setting that is automatically activated for wind shear, engine failure or by placing the thrust levers at 85 degrees.
Headwind shears from sim photos
MM:SS Hdg A/S G/S Wθ xWθ WV HW =cos(xWθ)*WV
22:42 32 146 122 47 15 33 32
22:47 34 144 139 63 29 18 16
22:50 32 145 146 103 71 11 4
22:56 30 124 159 204 174 21-21
22:57 30 127 162 220 190 24-24
Unfortunately the source tag fails to put out a fixed pitch font. Mods, feel welcome to fix
Note the change in airspeed and groundspeed in close step with headwind component - a signature of windshear incidents and accidents.
While these photos are at variable intervals, they do show a - 56 kt h/w shear over 15 seconds.
22:42 32 146 122 47 15 33 32
22:47 34 144 139 63 29 18 16
22:50 32 145 146 103 71 11 4
22:56 30 124 159 204 174 21-21
22:57 30 127 162 220 190 24-24
Unfortunately the source tag fails to put out a fixed pitch font. Mods, feel welcome to fix
Note the change in airspeed and groundspeed in close step with headwind component - a signature of windshear incidents and accidents.
While these photos are at variable intervals, they do show a - 56 kt h/w shear over 15 seconds.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm confused, too.
We know where the engines ended up and we can deduce approximately where they were torn off (more accurately in the case of No 1 engine because of the marks on the tarmac).
But how are you relating that to the timeline in the FDR readout ? We can see that the gear was selected up at some point between 20:22:50 and 20:22:52, at which point the aircraft had rotated and was between 5' and 15' above the runway.
I can't see any charts in the FDR readout that show the horizontal position of the aircraft vs time.
We know where the engines ended up and we can deduce approximately where they were torn off (more accurately in the case of No 1 engine because of the marks on the tarmac).
But how are you relating that to the timeline in the FDR readout ? We can see that the gear was selected up at some point between 20:22:50 and 20:22:52, at which point the aircraft had rotated and was between 5' and 15' above the runway.
I can't see any charts in the FDR readout that show the horizontal position of the aircraft vs time.
The AC skidded and bounced (pictures from above the RW end) for at least 100 meters (300 ft) before stopping.
What is showed in the SIM screen captures (pages 34 to 39) is not correlated with real timeline.