|
Don't worry I was a training captain on the big boy the B747 and have also flown the mother of B737 the B707. So don't preach.
|
Originally Posted by Stick Flying
(Post 10857569)
I can read, Just don't do BS. How much Boeing knowledge do you really have (not just the Wikipedia time). You are short of facts. But there again, an Airbus Fanboy wouldn't want to acquaint themselves with ACTUAL Boeing facts.
|
Re position of the throttles - anything is possible here as to why pedestal controls are in the position they are - it is possible that the separate of fuselage sections pulled the cables sufficiently to change throttle positions... It is possible that the g-forces of impact could have moved the throttles (not to mention flying debris). However if the T/R piggyback levers are lifted, it mechanically locks the throttle levers at idle so it suggests the reversers were not deployed. |
Or that if they were deployed, they were cancelled? Having recently done several rejected landings (in the sim I hasten to add), you are not far off flying speed and it doesn’t take that much time and distance to become airborne again. If you had touched down, autobrakes kicked in, selected reverse then realised it wasn’t working and tried to unravel all that you are in a whole different ballgame.
I think it's reasonable to assume that if an overrun was looking likely and you were still trying to stop, you would be bending the TRs backwards all the way to the end of the runway and beyond. As pointed out above, thrust levers out of idle means no reverse. |
I read an Indian newspaper article where it says that a ground personnel saw the aircraft bounce twice before it went off the runway.
Some of the above posts mention flaps 1 setting, the flap lever is at 40. Looks like they did not move the flap lever if they were indeed trying to go around or they simply didn’t have the time before it went off the runway. |
According to Boeing FCTM after T/R deployed it's a FULL STOP LANDING!!
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....87f2afdfe1.png https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....37d86f0d39.png |
Some good speculation here and some bad. In defence of the pilot I wonder about the elephant in the room and that is aquaplaning. 9 x the square root of the tyre pressure. I have only flown the 200/300/400. On the 400 we ran the tyres around 220psi. This gets very close to a common Vref. Add water and no grooving and a little tail-wind for good measure. I have flown four different Boeings and the 737 is the only one I have experienced aquaplaning and it very nearly was my undoing once. A strange sensation and a horrible feeling of accelerating.
|
If only the glide slope runway 28 was serviceable, a successful landing might have occurred.
|
Originally Posted by gottofly
(Post 10857724)
Some of the above posts mention flaps 1 setting, the flap lever is at 40. Looks like they did not move the flap lever if they were indeed trying to go around or they simply didn’t have the time before it went off the runway.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e135e4768f.jpg https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c7a33fc9d0.jpg |
FullWings
The FCTM tells us to continue with normal go around procedures after a baulked landing. That’s assuming they didn’t select reverse thrust after touchdown. Another member has very kindly uploaded a screenshot of the FCTM page where Boeing says in no uncertain terms that safe flight is NOT possible if a go around is initiated after you select reverse thrust. Since the FR24 data shows them coming in hot, and (eyewitness reports?) then bouncing twice, they may have finally touched down with very little runway remaining to stop. However the spoilers would be raised for the duration of their ground roll (assuming they were armed for landing) until the moment they advanced the thrust levers for the go around. The DFDR will reveal the actual facts. Also worth noting is the wet muddy patch of the area past the paved surface of the runway may have slowed them down sufficiently to prevent reaching Vmcu /airborne. It’s worth noting that whenever I use Autobrake 3 on both the B737CL or B737NG, the braking provided in combination with max reverse is fantastic on both dry & wet runways. I can’t comment on contaminated runways because my operation manual prohibits taking off or landing from contaminated runways/whenever braking action is reported as poor. So they may have slowed to ~ 100kts before realising that they were running out of runway. Again, these are just my 2 cents. |
An update on the investigation from the Hindustan Times.
Weather dismissed as factor in deadly Air India crash The Boeing Co. 737 appeared to touch down near the middle of the 9,000-foot-long (2,743-meter-long) runway at Kozhikode, the person said, before skidding off the end and careening down a slope, breaking into three parts.INDIA Updated: Aug 10, 2020 18:38 IST Bloomberg | Posted by Arpan Rai Weather conditions were within safe ranges and pilots were briefed about them by controllers just before the Air India Express jet they were flying crashed at a southern Indian airport Friday, killing at least 18 people and injuring more than 100, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter. The Boeing Co. 737 appeared to touch down near the middle of the 9,000-foot-long (2,743-meter-long) runway at Kozhikode, the person said, before skidding off the end and careening down a slope, breaking into three parts. The captain was experienced, with 11,000 flying hours, while the co-pilot had 2,000 hours. Neither one made a distress call, and both died in the crash. Visibility, precipitation and tailwinds were within acceptable guidelines for landing, the person said, asking not to be identified because the investigation is ongoing. A playback on the FlightRadar24 website shows a first attempt to land the plane was aborted before another effort was made from the opposite direction. The flight-tracking site shows visibility at the airport was 1,500-to-2,000 meters, and winds were blowing at 12-13 knots, which is a moderate breeze on the Beaufort scale. Indian officials say 800 meters is sufficient visibility for landing. |
From the New India Express.
Kozhikode plane crash: Did Air India flight land at speed higher than normal?It is suspected that the reverse thrust mode used to reduce the speed after landing probably didn’t work, which could indicate a technical fault. Published: 10th August 2020 09:31 AM | Last Updated: 10th August 2020 09:31 AM By Dhinesh Kallungal Express News Service THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Air India Express plane involved in the accident at the Kozhikode airport on Friday night that claimed 18 lives approached the runway at a speed higher than what is ideal for a safe touchdown, sources at the airport revealed. Also, it is learnt that the aircraft touched down on the runway well beyond the threshold mark, making it a risky landing. Besides, it is suspected that the reverse thrust mode used to reduce the speed after landing probably didn’t work, which could indicate a technical fault. “Normally, aircraft approach the runway at a speed range of 220-240kmph (120-130 knots). But this plane descended on the runway at over 300kmph,” said a reliable source in the Airport Authority of India. Further, the aircraft touched down on the 2,860-metre runway (which includes the 240-metre Runway End Safety Area) at the 1,300-metre point. The Boeing 737 with 190 on board skidded and fell off the edge of the table-top runway while landing in bad weather. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation have launched an investigation into the accident. An inspection of the accident site also raised suspicion whether the aircraft engine had really worked in reverse thrust — a process of temporarily diverting the engine’s thrust against the forward travel to provide deceleration. According to experts, even aircraft that touchdown beyond the threshold mark can be effectively stopped if the engine is in the reverse thrust mode.After landing, the plane crossed Runway End Safety Area and broke the instrument landing system lights. The officials who inspected the site told Express the splinters of the landing system lights were strewn on the tarmac. “If the aircraft was in the reverse thrust mode, the splinters would have been lying on the front side,” one of them said. “Further, around 90 metres of the sand-filled portion ahead of the runway remained almost intact, showing no signs of reverse thrust,” said an official. The official, however, said it’s hard to believe that a senior pilot in command, who used to train Air India Express pilots, did not put the plane in reverse thrust mode in a distress condition. “Maybe something beyond one’s judgment or imagination would have happened. We have to wait till data from the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (black box) are decoded, which can give a clear idea about what happened in the last minutes,” the official said. Meanwhile, airport sources told Express that the runway surface tailwind during the time of landing was 8 knots, while a Boeing 737 can withstand a tailwind of up to 15 knots. The sources also confirmed that when the pilot aborted the first attempt to land on Runway 28, he cited heavy wind as the reason. Later, he approached Runway 10 after the takeoff of a Delhi aircraft from the same runway. No distress signal was sent to the air traffic control unit of the airport from the cockpit even after landing, sources said. https://www.newindianexpress.com/sta...l-2181339.html |
Looking at the above graphic a net barrier would not of split the aircraft in two.
|
Lots of things would not have split the aircraft in two.
|
masalama
But why so many reversals?? Even when there was not flight scheduled for departure during that period? If someone looks at historical data, there are fewer 'reversals' when attempting landing of RWY28 as compared to RWY10. The only edge RWY10 has is that there is no obstacle upto 10 kms from RWY10 whereas RWY28 has a mast ELEV 621 ft. DIST. 7017m from beginning of RWY28 Bearing 104o 15' (M) |
How are ‘reversals’ relevant to the tragic crash?
1. Concentrate on landing deep into the runway with a tailwind. 2. Runway contamination / braking action. 3. The inadequate RESA and the steep slope / airfield boundary wall. 4. CRM / decision making by the crew. Was Command gradient a factor? 5. G/S “u/s” RW 28. These so far are some of the relevant factors, from a non exhaustive list. Item 3 caused the fatality |
1. Cannot compare approach and landing performance of an ATR with a B737-8.
2. What about the wind component at the moment of landing? 3. Runway contamination? 4. Where did they made contact with the runway? (how deep into it)? |
If it was a very long landing, - Reports say the aircraft touched down near the center of the runway- at any phase of the final approach, the aircraft should have not been calibrated with the glideslope parameter. It should have flown way too high. Then it is obvious that the pilot must have attempted to increase the descent rate. But here the transponder data from various sources indicate that the descent rate of the aircraft was within normal limit! The last known position of the aircraft was at 945 ft Calibrated altitude, 175 kts Groundspeed, and descending at a rate of 896 ft/mint. Normal except the ground speed. (It seems way too a high speed at that point even if the 12 kts tailwind is considered) .... Then the Pictures of the broken cockpit shows a fully advanced thrust liver, a disengaged reverse thrust, a completely up Spoilers Arm, and a flap setting of 40... !! Strange and Extremely confusing.
|
CRM
Originally Posted by Physel Poilil
(Post 10858025)
Strange and Extremely confusing.
|
Vref F40 is 141kias at 65ton, min add +5 (if gusty wind maybe they used +15??) gives 157kias on the MCP, correct for pressure/temp results in 162ktas and with 14kts tailwing gives the 176kts groundspeed
|
Originally Posted by B737Capt
(Post 10858089)
Vref F40 is 141kias at 65ton, min add +5 (if gusty wind maybe they used +15??
Quote from FCTM: Note: Do not apply wind additives for steady tailwinds or tailwind gusts. Set command speed at VREF + 5 knots (autothrottle connected or disconnected). |
Humpback runway
The subject run way has a hump in the middle and sloping to both ends. Elevation is 343m right in the middle, sloping to 315m at start of RWY10 and 326m at start of RWY28. So if the runway is contaminated with water and rubber, plane landing deep and moving down the slope, where even flow of water is likely, disaster is imminent.... RWY10/28 presumably does not have Centre light but only Edge lights. Add to that Heavy downpour and failing natural light....
|
Originally Posted by TopGunMaverick
(Post 10858119)
The subject run way has a hump in the middle and sloping to both ends. Elevation is 343m right in the middle, sloping to 315m at start of RWY10 and 326m at start of RWY28.
The 10 THR elevation is 314 feet, and the TDZ elevation 338 feet. |
C310driver
Think Command Gradient. Think “Culture”. That will answer your questions. |
Thanks, tdracer...of course! ;)
vilas, good demonstration; the A340 & A330 main gear are similar - slight extension on rotation for tail clearance. The oleo is shortened slightly on retraction and lengthened as part of the extension cycle. |
Can anyone familiar with the airfield recall if there are distance to go markers on the runway?
Approach to RWY10 https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....dc6f1f2342.png Landing spot approx 1300 metes in from RWY10 threshhold. https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5c2dbb4ebe.png |
I have absolutely no doubt that the cultural aspect will be massive in this accident. The accident cockpit dynamic has all the ingredients for a typical steep cockpit gradient. Highly decorated ex Air Force commander, instructor (?), ex test pilot vs plain jane line FO. I’m curious to learn about the decision making in the final minute of the accident flight.
|
Here’s something very interesting. Upholds my theory that he PF tried to take off again after realizing that he couldn’t stop before the end … 😳
An extremely poor decision at the very least … https://indianexpress.com/article/in...ficer-6549840/ |
Have you experienced the cockpit culture in India first hand?
|
True
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10858218)
No, wrong units.
The 10 THR elevation is 314 feet, and the TDZ elevation 338 feet. |
We ain't in the theory business
King on a Wing
“There was no sound before the crash. The endpoint of the runway is parallel to the entrance of the perimeter gate from where we could see any flight take off or land,” Singh told indianexpress.com. |
Originally Posted by redpill
(Post 10858366)
Have you experienced the cockpit culture in India first hand?
Please enlighten me, I’m eager to know. |
Originally Posted by Teddy Robinson
(Post 10858417)
King on a Wing
“There was no sound before the crash. |
Originally Posted by C310driver
So they may have slowed to ~ 100kts before realising that they were running out of runway. Again, these are just my 2 cents.
|
According to news reports Captain Sathe was given a state funeral today for his heroism.
Reports reveal that according to aviation experts, the decision by Sathe and Kumar to shut off the engines after touch down was very important since it ensured that the plane did not catch fire. This eventually ended up saving the lives of many passengers who [would] have died if the engines had caught fire and resulted in a bigger death rate. Late Air India Pilot, Captain Deepak Sathe’s Traits Which Made Him A Real Hero By Chirali Sharma August 11, 2020 https://edtimes.in/wp-content/upload...nt-Sathe-1.pngOn 7th August a tragic accident took place where an Air India Express flight crashed at the Karipur Airport in Kozhikode, Kerala taking the lives of both its pilot and co-pilot along. In total, 18 people had died that unfortunate day when the plane crashed due to bad weather that had made the runway slippery and led to the plane being unable to make a safe landing. The flight coming from Dubai had 190 passengers onboard and it overshot the table-top runway at the airport due to heavy rains. This led to the plane crashing and breaking into two pieces with one falling in a valley almost 35-feet below. News reported that pilot-in-command Captain Deepak Sathe had passed away instantly, while co-pilot Captain Abhishek Kumar succumbing to injuries later on. Today the captain’s body was laid to rest in Mumbai with him getting full state honours and representatives from army, navy, coastguard, Mumbai police and city mayor along with his family members and some politicians too paying their respects to him. Union civil aviation minister Hardeep Puri also stated that Pilot Sathe was one of the “most experienced and distinguished commanders – Deepak Sathe. He had landed on this airfield as many as 27 times, including this year. He was a very accomplished, experienced, decorated person in command of the aircraft. There is absolutely no doubt over their competence.” So here we take a look at some things that truly made him into an inspiration and not someone we should forget easily: Sathe Probably Saved Many LivesMany people often get confused at the low number of death rate in the crash considering how much damage to the aircraft there was.However, it seems that might be because of the quick thinking of the pilots themselves more than anything. Reports reveal that according to aviation experts, the decision by Sathe and Kumar to shut off the engines after touch down was very important since it ensured that the plane did not catch fire. This eventually ended up saving the lives of many passengers who have died if the engines had caught fire and resulted in a bigger death rate. |
Originally Posted by C310driver
(Post 10858443)
If this is directed towards me then no, I haven’t.
Please enlighten me, I’m eager to know. Might give you a ‘favour’ of Indian aviation. |
Reports reveal that according to aviation experts, the decision by Sathe and Kumar to shut off the engines after touch down was very important since it ensured that the plane did not catch fire. Certainly not the case. https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c5a9957e6.jpeg |
Originally Posted by B737Capt
(Post 10858089)
Vref F40 is 141kias at 65ton, min add +5 (if gusty wind maybe they used +15??) gives 157kias on the MCP, correct for pressure/temp results in 162ktas and with 14kts tailwing gives the 176kts groundspeed
Look no further gentlemen, it was a b awful decision and landing. |
Where is that photo coming from?
|
Originally Posted by C310driver
(Post 10858056)
I have to wonder who was the PF on this flight. If it was the FO, why didn’t the PIC assume control or call for a go around earlier? If it was the PIC, I’m curious to know if the FO spoke up (was assertive enough) to call for a go around earlier? Surely he couldn’t have just sat there & done nothing, watching his PIC mishandle the aircraft.
.... I speculate |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:19. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.