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

Aeromexico 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.

Aeromexico Crash

Old 7th Sep 2018, 09:22
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,787
Received 196 Likes on 90 Posts
Originally Posted by guadaMB
I sincerely doubt any action of "gear up" in those last two seconds.
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.
I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make ?

You will be aware, obviously, that the FDR charts on Pages 27/28 of the report stop at the point where the aircraft started to descend.

The last plots on the chart, at 20:25:55, show the aircraft climbing through 30' AGL, engines performing normally and gear in transit having been selected Up.

Incidentally, although my statement

I can't see any charts in the FDR readout that show the horizontal position of the aircraft vs time.
was correct, you can very approximately estimate the point along the runway at which the aircraft became airborne by integration from the longitudinal acceleration plot, which clearly shows the start of roll followed by a roughly constant 0.2 g (say 2 m/s²) acceleration for approximately 35 seconds before rotation.

This gives a ground roll of approximately 1200 m which, had it started on the piano keys (it may not have) would have meant rotation just past Twy D. If the takeoff roll had been from the Twy E or Twy D intersections (though the sim screens suggest not), rotation would have been around 650/1150 m further on, respectively.

By comparison, Twy B, where the No 1 engine impact witness marks were found, is approximately 2400 m from the piano keys.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2018, 10:14
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@DaveReidUK
Your figures coincide with some PAX statements.
This means the AC was aloft in the region of 1000/1200 meters. There's no FDR data from 20:22:55 until the "stop" of the AC on soft ground.
It's supposed the max alt was in the region of 30/40 ft AGL (with the data given by the preliminary report)

The "gear up" selection is not at 30 ft but at less than 15 ft AGL.
And in the SIM captures appears to be made at 8 ft AGL (supposedly made after copying the FDR data).

In those extremely bad conditions, what could made the PF order "gear up" when the AC was LESS than 15 ft AGL (because the command "gear up", takes a while to the FO to move the arm/hand, find the lever and push, besides [I suppose] there wasn't a pleasant TO procedure to take it in the calm way).
If things happened as the data shows, the PF commanded "gear up" being 6 to 9 ft AGL and that's difficult to understand (to me).
guadaMB is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2018, 10:34
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Let me add something:
We're having some discussions based on data given by the Mexican authorities.
The same "authorities" introduce a THIRD PILOT in the cockpit, in a kind of non-authorized training action, making the beginning of the TO procedure until the PIC asks for the command of the AC.
This third pilot appears at the very END of the report, in a 36 words paragraph, as saying: "Ahhhh, we forgot to comment the TO started not with the PIC and the FO but with another pilot in training, playing FO, of course not authorized..."
If this third pilot made the beginning of the TO procedure, had to be seated in the right seat, am I right?
And the FO was in the "observer seat".
One thing is sure: the PIC was sitting in the left seat because had to be evacuated PILOT AND SEAT together when the AC took fire and this was made by the only Spanish passenger on board.

The FDR datasheet maybe not "that real" (this is a guess, I'm a bad boy)
guadaMB is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2018, 21:30
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: North America
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What was only a rumor has now been confirmed by Mexican authorities, a new to the company First Officer flying as an observer was the pilot at the controls. Apparently he was undergoing training on the E-Jets, not yet type rated, regular non-training flight, captain wasn't qualified as instructor.

The three pilots involved have now been terminated
fisher22 is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2018, 21:36
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 534
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good Lord. Great CRM then.....I won’t erase my comments, but having based them on some assumptions of a legal crew, I think they (comments) were based on data that is wholly unreliable. Sorry.

Last edited by Concours77; 7th Sep 2018 at 21:55.
Concours77 is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2018, 21:48
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by fisher22
What was only a rumor has now been confirmed by Mexican authorities, a new to the company First Officer flying as an observer was the pilot at the controls. Apparently he was undergoing training on the E-Jets, not yet type rated, regular non-training flight, captain wasn't qualified as instructor.

The three pilots involved have now been terminated
There's a possibility that things went as you tell, but...

Confirmed:
The third pilot was at the controls at the beginning of the TO procedure (not being known until what step of TO) and these were returned to the PIC.
What is assumed by the Mex authorities is that there weren't any waiver to make any training in that flight/AC.
Evidently all was under the carpet just to avoid the insurances waterfall but rumors made them to assume it (besides it was made almost buried by a lot of technical data in the preliminary report).
After being medical treated, pilots were under curfew.
The Spanish pax that made a complex evac of the PIC with the cockpit under fire intended to have a phone call with the PIC (the pax in Durango's hospital and the PIC in a Mexico DF hospital) and could only talk to an Aeromexico employee who said "the PIC was recovering from surgery, thanks".
guadaMB is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2018, 18:54
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With the flight data, confirmed by meteorologists, simulator tests were conducted, no flight crew was able to get through the scenario with a different outcome.
From the report:

"No existe evidencia de fallas humanas en la conducción de
la aeronave. No hubo información para que la tripulación
considerara demorar el despegue y los ejercicios de
simulador concluyeron todos con el mismo resultado."

They are saying there was no human error in the HANDLING of the aircraft and then insisting that there was no information to make the crew consider delaying the take off.

The question is: "How many crews would have decided to delay the T.O. or NOT to T.O. if they saw what this crew saw when they started the take off roll?

I think most crews would not depart if they saw this coming.
sabenaboy is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2018, 19:16
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 724
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Discussion going on at the avherald site, claiming that the Mexican ALPA is organising a strike by all AeroMexico pilots. Reason: the 3 pilots involved in this accident have summarly been fired.
The reason for them being fired appears to be the fact that the captain did not have an instructor licence, the pilot flying did not have a type rating yet, and the third pilot, who was supposed to be in the right hand seat, was actually on the jump seat.
The pilot in he right hand seat was due to begin his simulator training and was a personal friend of the captain.
As this was apparently the cockpit setup, the insurance company refuses to pay out.
Sounds like a real mess.

Accident: Aeromexico Connect E190 at Durango on Jul 31st 2018, veered off and overran runway after rejected takeoff and burst into flames
fox niner is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2018, 20:21
  #149 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 77
Posts: 4,131
Received 215 Likes on 62 Posts
The pilot in the right hand seat was due to begin his simulator training and was a personal friend of the captain.
I'm not surprised the insurance company won't pay out. If this is true, the mind boggles. The pilots are going on strike? Do they want the crew re-instated?
Herod is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2018, 22:02
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: North America
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Aeromexico pilot union is considering going on strike (99% sure they won't) because everybody got their jumspeat privileges taken away by management as a knee jerk reaction to this accident, which is an actual breach of contract by the company. It's not because the actual termination of the pilots.
fisher22 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2018, 09:50
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Aeromexico pilots "reaction" towards a strike is favouring Aeromexico.
Takes attention out of the real focus: THE ACCIDENT.
Insurance companies always want to find a way to don't pay. This is not new.

@sabenaboy

If the microburst came suddenly (not to believe the video's time lapse as the happened in the airport), it's not difficult to understand that crew could be got in underpants.
PIC talking to his friend (right seat) about the AC cockpit, this beginning TO procedure and then PIC asks for the command...
And the burst came into action with the AC in full thrust. This is corroborated by several pax statements. TO thrust begun "normally" and no extreme rain or wind at that time.
Then the cockpit had to be a real mess. Confusion had to be the right word.
Because GEAR UP is being made when the AC was 3 or 4 meters (9 to 12 ft) AGL...(data from the preliminary report, if we have to believe it)
My question is:
- who is going to order GEAR UP being almost on ground?
- E190 and all ACs can fly hundreds of miles GEAR DOWN.
- besides there's no trace of any RTO intention, if you're in trouble during TO, would you prefer to land back on your three set of wheels or belly-first?
- why to do an useless action (gear up) that takes time and concentration of the other crew, provided he/she is able to handle the AC?
guadaMB is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2018, 13:24
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One might suspect a bit of machismo being demonstrated here, the Captain showing his buddy the new trainee just how well they could handle any weather
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2018, 14:36
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
am

Outrageous how the Mexican DGAC is trying to make a cover up for the nonsense of the pilots, minimizing the fact that the observer shouldn’t have been seated operating the aircraft under ANY circumstance. The windshear was severe, but I’m sure that if the captain have had controls during the whole takeoff phase, we wouldn’t be discussing this right now. Also, the Union is also doing a very poor job by trying to protest against the involved pilots been fired. You cannot defend someone that risked the life's of so many people by doing something so stupid like that!
Anyway, they’re many issues still to be raised here, including all the passengers who sued the airline...
pezetaroi is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2018, 15:17
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pezetaroi
Outrageous how the Mexican DGAC is trying to make a cover up for the nonsense of the pilots, minimizing the fact that the observer shouldn’t have been seated operating the aircraft under ANY circumstance. The windshear was severe, but I’m sure that if the captain have had controls during the whole takeoff phase, we wouldn’t be discussing this right now. Also, the Union is also doing a very poor job by trying to protest against the involved pilots been fired. You cannot defend someone that risked the life's of so many people by doing something so stupid like that!
Anyway, they’re many issues still to be raised here, including all the passengers who sued the airline...
That's exactly the point. It's hard to believe that there was not something looking very mean when this "crew" looked down the runway just prior to starting the take off roll. Haven't we all heard of severe microbursts associated with downpoors during training? A captain that lets a non rated observer act as F/O during departure is not likely to be the prudent type who would say: 'that doesn't look reassuring at the end of the rwy, let's just wait a bit and sit it out.
I think that a lot of normal crews would have had the common sense not to start the take off roll. The question if they aborted or not, or if they could have made it through the microburst is not important.
THÉ question is "could and should a normal crew have known that they were heading to a potentially dangerous microburst? If what they saw through the cockpit windows vaguely resembled what you can see in the youtube video above, the answer is YES!
sabenaboy is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2018, 15:36
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: North America
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pezetaroi
Also, the Union is also doing a very poor job by trying to protest against the involved pilots been fired. You cannot defend someone that risked the life's of so many people by doing something so stupid like that!
Like I said in a previous post the Union is not defending the fired pilots, they're protesting against the fact that 2,000+ other Aeromexico, Aeromexico Connect, Aeromar and Mexicana pilots got their jumpseat privileges taken away by the company, this being a breach of contract.
fisher22 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2018, 16:37
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 534
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Prohibiting jumpseat privilege is shortsighted and confrontational. Because it was abused by one crew doesn’t (should not) create any need to remove it. imo.
Concours77 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2018, 17:16
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pezetaroi
Outrageous how the Mexican DGAC is trying to make a cover up for the nonsense of the pilots, minimizing the fact that the observer shouldn’t have been seated operating the aircraft under ANY circumstance. The windshear was severe, but I’m sure that if the captain have had controls during the whole takeoff phase, we wouldn’t be discussing this right now. Also, the Union is also doing a very poor job by trying to protest against the involved pilots been fired. You cannot defend someone that risked the life's of so many people by doing something so stupid like that!
Anyway, they’re many issues still to be raised here, including all the passengers who sued the airline...

Page 41 of the preliminary report:
"Se detectó una sesión de habilitación en ruta no autorizada. Un tripulante desarrolló las funciones de copiloto, con el acompañamiento del Comandante, hasta que este le pidió los controles. Se dio aviso a la autoridad aeronáutica."
Translation:
"It's been detected a non authorized training session. A crew member developed copilot functions along with the Commander until this (the commander) asked for the controls. It's been given word of this to the aeronautic authority".

This is the sole mention to a breach in the rules. It's not clear until WHEN (which part of the TO procedure) the PIC asked for the controls of the AC.

Last edited by guadaMB; 9th Sep 2018 at 17:22. Reason: typo
guadaMB is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2018, 00:42
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What I mean is that the DGAC entirely blames the event on the weather, letting know that whoever was on the controls, the outcome would have been the same, clearly minimizing the fact, that the observer acting as a PF and then PM could have been the cause of the accident.
pezetaroi is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2018, 01:03
  #159 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Concours77
Prohibiting jumpseat privilege is shortsighted and confrontational. Because it was abused by one crew doesn’t (should not) create any need to remove it. imo.
Absolutely. This jump seat rider was presumably approved by the company. If not, so what as to jump seat privileges?
aterpster is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2018, 08:31
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pezetaroi
What I mean is that the DGAC entirely blames the event on the weather, letting know that whoever was on the controls, the outcome would have been the same, clearly minimizing the fact, that the observer acting as a PF and then PM could have been the cause of the accident.
D'accord, but...
To understand the policy of blaming mainly on Wx (putting under the carpet the crew affaire), have to dig into the insurance contracts. Not reachable for us, but easy to suppose its terms.
Besides it, it's not to forget some peculiarities that could concur. All depends on the possible godfather/s of the crew members (inside & outside the carrier).
Can't say more...
guadaMB 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.