|
The one thing that is a MUST to have with you when you evacuate is your car keys.
|
listen - most airlines allow now everything but the kitchen sink to be taken on board in the cabin - so much so if you get on last you cant even find space for your coat - people will not pay for luggage where they can - so what do you expect?? |
i did post a cabin pic of one of our a/c in 1984 which only had hat racks so you simply had to put your bag under the seat in front of you
but my post was deleted puts it in perceptive when seeing today's pics of the USAir pax evac with loads of big bags again |
The Blonde pax freaking out...
Instead of helping elderly or injured, this young lady had enough time to put on her phone and film herself freaking out... Ok, thats kind of understandable, but post the film in public and become famous for beeing a freaked out blond goes beyond me... Selfie-Video nach Startabbruch: «Das Flugzeug brennt!» ? News ? Blick The fourth error is to not notice/care about the third error and upload anyway. |
Is the gear collapsed or just buried in the dirt? |
On the news it looked like there's significant wrinkling in the top fuselage above the L1 door and forward of the antenna. However, the camera angle was bad and it was difficult to see any detail. The aircraft is 14 years old- it may be destined for a new life as beer cans!
Also note that almost everyone in the photos is dressed for FLL, the destination. Air temp at PHL was 32F/0c at the time of the accident. |
V1-10
I wasn't suggesting to rotate at V1-10 , but execute a normal takeoff at VR and get airborne and sort the problem out if the problem is related to tires
Maybe you would prefer to do an RTO at V1 -10 with a fully loaded aircraft on a short runway ? |
Hotel Tango wrote:
There's always one isn't there |
I wasn't suggesting to rotate at V1-10 , but execute a normal takeoff at VR and get airborne and sort the problem out if the problem is related to tires |
barit1, respect sir
|
I agree with you ... AIB put out a briefing recommending to get airborne in the V1 -20 to V1 range if a tire bursts and doesn't damage the engine .
This incident occurred to me a few years ago going out of rome Ciampino down to Sharm in Egypt with a full load of pax . I decided to get airborne than doing an RTO near V1 ... |
It isn't just SLF that try to get their bags off the airplane when they evacuate.....
|
Stopping after v1?,,,no,no,no,no!
anyone who has flown transport cat airplanes had this drilled in them over and over. Lots of examples of blown tires on t/o causing post V1 stopping decision which almost always was a disaster are on the books.
On this on at PHL...maybe tire popped on t/o, fod entered left engine, pilot "derotated' hard which collapsed nose gear...hope not,,,but cvr/fdr will tell the tale...we'll see. |
Why are people suggesting you rotate prior to V1??
And who are these people assuming that it has reached V2? |
reviewing the FAA literature/Boeing literature, it indicates that the moment a tire is lifted off the runway, the vibration may bet much worse as there is a dampening effect when the tire is in contact with the runway.
could the nose have lifted off, the tire shook MORE violently and a decision to put it back on made? |
5 knots below V1/VR enormous bang.
P1 go minded and begins rotate at his V1/VR (company SOPS - doesn't have to rely on the call?). P2 perceives imminent danger prior to his ASI hitting V1/VR and closes thrust levers. The safe/unsafe (life/death?) decide, communicate, and act whether to get airborne or stop occurs over a period of one-banana-two. Always tricky accelerating just before V1/VR. |
Windshear reported!
If it was wind-shear you have no choice in whether or not you land after V1, you just loose lift and fall out of the sky! Don't you?
|
blimey
the reject/go no go decision is up to the captain at every airline I can think of unless the captain is incapacitated. the copilot does not make the decision and the captain is the one to actually take control of the plane and reject (assuming the copilot was flying the takeoff). mark654321. while windshear/microburst can cause a plane to crash, it does not ALWAYS cause it to crash (go down and land)> it depends on the severity of the shear, capability of the plane, capability and skill of the crew. pretty sure that KPHL has windshear detecting equipment , even beyond the old LLWS alert system, but the much better doppler. |
the reject/go no go decision is up to the captain at every airline I can think of unless the captain is incapacitated. the copilot does not make the decision and the captain is the one to actually take control of the plane and reject (assuming the copilot was flying the takeoff). |
Gonna have to wait for some more details on this one.
I can see a "fr'instance" where they catch a headwind gust just around V1 (doesn't have to be classic "microburst wind shear", just a gust), that boosts airspeed enough for an unintentional liftoff in ground effect. Just as the PIC is thinking "abort" due to vibration and bang of nose tire failure. Maybe he puts in a little nose-down pitch just as the gust fades away - or maybe he doesn't, but the loss of the wind (coincidentally just as they get high enough to clear ground effect) puts her down hard anyway. Bouncy-bouncy-CRUNCH. Fortunately the AB survives better than the jet at Aspen. |
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.
|
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!
|
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. |
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. |
So, what does the Airbus FCOM say about a blown tire (tyre) on takeoff?
And, what is the USAirways SOP say? |
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 |
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. |
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". |
See ‘Rejecting after V1; why does it still happen?’, note the incident on page 15.
|
We're becoming a nanny state like many of the countries in Europe. People are dumbing down while government overreach is dumbing up. What's wrong with someone pointing out a potential threat in a high stress situation? |
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. |
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." |
Originally Posted by iskyfly
(Post 8390727)
"AIRCRAFT ABORTED TAKE OFF DUE TO SMOKE IN THE NUMBER ONE ENGINE. AFTER THE NOSE TIRE TOUCHED DOWN, THE NOSE GEAR COLLAPSED, PHILADELPHIA, PA."
How did the crew know there was smoke in the #1 engine? Why did they reject after V1? |
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. |
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. |
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! Ground Mode Flight Mode Flare Mode I find no reference to "LAND(ing)" mode and "TAKE-OFF" mode as mentioned in the quote above. |
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. |
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 |
The computer needed those values to calculate takeoff power, and required their re-entry after a runway change. 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* |
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. 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? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.