MAYDAY issued over Irish Sea
 

There are reports that anE145 passenger jet has issued a MayDay over the Irish Sea. it was on the way to Belfast but has been diverted to Macheste Airport for an emergency landing. 26 people on board.
Problem believed to be with the engine pitch causing plane to climb instead of flying level.

Engine pitch? Anything to do with Capt. Horrendous' report on the ATP-XL :)

MAYBE STABILISER PROBLEM? ANY UPDATES?

What a load of crap! Can you explain what engine pitch is, oh clever one!?

STANDBY CHAPS, ITN Journalist on the sniff, apparent from the comment on 'engine pitch'

RTE news are reporting a safe landing in MAN.
Report states that a commercial jet with 26 pax onboard, bound for Belfast, made a maday call over the Irish sea, and diverted .
As for engine pitch ????? Maybe we are refering to something with variable geometry engine inlets ?? :)
Maybe not!

No idea what engine pitch control is - which is why I refer to the greater wisdom of people who fly.
Anyhow this report was taken from rescue radio monitoring.
Understand safe landing - all fine.

Is it a condition of being a professional pilot that one has to sneer at anyone else who hasnt chosen that career path?
Just because someone understands the undoubted complexities of flying a plane doesn't mean you can't politily share your expertise with lesser mortals.

Heard it on BRAL co freq - 145 with no pitch trim flying Belfast - MAN. Crew sorted it and continued to MAN landing safely, congrats to all!

Similar problem to BMs E145 last week. Elevator problem plus flapless landing @ about 1300. All OK.
Concerned if it is the same problem as BM.

LATEST, sorry you received such rude replies to yor post.
We should all remember that not all contributors to this board are professional pilots - and not all are 100% familiar with the often confusing terminology used in aviation.
I admire you for being up front enough in you profile to give your name and job description.
At least you don't used the same cloak and dagger tactics that your collegues in C4 use !!
I look forward to watching this report on ITN later! :)

Compy http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

LATEST

Check your email

JF

SORRY LATEST,

ME THINKS MAYBE YOU HAVE A VALID POINT-APOLOGIES.

AUTOTHROTTLE

John F,

Given the other apparently similar event, we're asking Embraer about it all. So if you have any detail, can you email me so we can brief them properly? - although I'm sure by the time we get to them they'll have been given the detail.

Long time no see. Hope things go well with you and yours.

David

Latest, you are aware that listening to non-'broadcast' frequencies is illegal without the appropriate license aren't you?

:)

Just like to say from MAN ATC well done to the chaps on board BRT903 today - fantastic landing and a totally professional job.

Nice one ;) ;) ;)

------------------
"Go around..I say again...go around"

Gentlemen,

Is it not the case that increasing power on aircraft with underslung engines does in fact result in an upward pitch moment on the aircraft which could cause difficulties with altitude holding if a malfunction of the autopilot, stabiliser or elevators was present?

Not so stupid latest. Apologies for my impetuous colleagues!

Bally,

The EMB145 is however a T-tailed twin jet with rear mounted engines. How would that react ??

------------------
PPRuNe Radar
ATC Forum Moderator
[email protected]

Incident happened on departure from BFS. Initially they couldn't pitch forward, and declared an Emergency on the Tower frequency. Transferred to a discreet frequency, and bust their cleared level.

Eventually levelled-off at approx. 11,000 feet, and then descended, and couldn't level-off until approx. FL075!

The crew expressed their concern that this was similar to another incident recently on another -145 from another operator.

Whilst I don't doubt that the crew did a good job, I was wondering whether their decision to continue all the way to MAN was a sound one. With a control difficulty such as that, I would have thought that Land ASAP would have been the better decision. They seemed to have regained sufficient control whilst still over N. Ireland. Comments??

They wouldn't have continued to destination unless the had identified and sorted the problem. Full stop. I've no experience on the E145, but it sounds to me as though it was a trim motor running away which is easily cured by pulling the relative CB. If this was the problem, manual trim would still be available and onward flight without the use of the autopilot a relative non event. Hopefully !!

------------------

Growler:

Sorry, old boy, but it seems that they did'nt have the problem sorted, as they were referring to themselves as "Mayday BRT 903" all the way to MAN, and squawking A7700. They repeated that they were still having control difficulties on a number of occasions after they decided to divert to MAN.

Now, if they had the problem sorted, they would have cancelled the MAYDAY, "Full Stop", to quote your goodself, wouldn't they?

we had the same problem a couple of months ago on the 145 soon after take off at CDG.pitch trims, main and back up, were not operative.there is no way to trim the 145 manually -no wheel trim-
.airspeed was kept low and we turn back to CDG and land safely.
the concern is that landing would not have been so easy if the trim had failed at higher speed

Sorry, I don't know the answer to that one Tango. I didn't realise there wasn't a manual trimmer either.

I think I shall retire gracefully.

------------------


[This message has been edited by The Growler (edited 07 November 2000).]

David L

Thanks I am well

Check your email

John

Prune Radar

Sorry, must misread the Bally posting....thought it was a 146.

I believe however from my instructing days that it would pitch up anyway. Y'know, effects of power and all that. Don't think you can certificate them otherwise as it would be unstable. Power off, nose pitches up, speed bleeds off, aircraft stalls. Should have stayed in bed this morning. Any aerodynamicists out there?

From what I have read it sounds like a problem with the (pardon me if I get the name wrong) "Variable Incidence Tailplane"??

I was reading about it in "Handling the Big Jets". Anyone like to comment?
Rusty

Thanks Bally, that explains it :)

Anyone able to offer advice on thrust and pitch change effects on something like the 145 ?

Just out of professional interest.

------------------
PPRuNe Radar
ATC Forum Moderator
[email protected]

Re_ERJ145 TRIM

/This is a known problem,and is caused if the trim is not correctly set during climb out due rough wx. The load against trim jack is to much to over come. Solution is to reduce airspeed to <200ias and re trim when the load is reduced,you can achieve the same result by triming in the opposite direction this will unstall the trim jack.

Sorry Bally,

Its entirely possible for an increase in thrust to cause a pitch down, it just depends where the line of action of the force is relative to the C of G.

If its above, increasing thrust causes a pitch down. If it below, causes pitch up.

Its just basic mechanics.

What happens next, for most aircraft most of the time, is that speed increases causing you to either start to climb or to have to trim nose down to avoid a climb. There may or may not be other factors mixed in (e.g. changes in prop effects, changes in downwash on the tail etc).

Don't confuse the effect of changing power with changing airspeed, nowithstanding that changing the former will also tend to change the latter.

CPB

Is there not a story of a DC10 that lost pitch control through the control column....crew used power from wing engines to pitch up - and power from (high mounted) tail engine to pitch down?

------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!

Bear Cub, you are referring to the accident at, if I remember correctly, Sioux City. It was indeed a DC-10 where the crew had lost all pitch control after an uncontained failure of the No 2 engine.

The crew did a fantastic job and managed to get the aircraft down using the pitch effect of the underslung Nos 1 and 3 engines. There were unfortunately casualties.

The industry learned a whole raft of lessons about both CRM and system redundancy after that one.

Thanks Capt Pit Bull and BIK_116.8. The wise old aerodynamics professor’s aeroplane sounds like the unachievable perfection of the designers art. Or is it?

Just out of interest and before the thread gets consigned to the Tech Log forum. Does anyone know of a large aircraft which pitches up when thrust is decreased? Saw a bizzare (German?) aircraft recently with the pods mounted on top of the wing. Surely that must.

Finally, and most importantly. How does one get those little dancing smiley faces to appear in a post?

Float Planes are predominantly trimmed in this manner.
With there being a relatively low positioned drag vector due to the parasite drag on the floats and the engine being mounted considerably above, there is a large nose down couple whilst under power, this requiring a large amount of nose up trim to balance the couple. Should the thrust drag couple now be reduced i.e. reducing power, the nose up trim will now have more effect on the aerodynamic forces.
The way around this is to fly inverted but I still haven't mastered the landing this way.
In order to have the Smiley faces enabled, make sure Smilies is not disabled at the bottom of the posting text and read the smilies legend for the character sequence which will activate the animation (under smilies legend).
Stick :rolleyes:

I am not a design or certification engineer BUT I understand that FAR23 and FAR25 (certification standards for civil aircraft) require that the thrust/drag couple is arranged such that a reduction in thrust will cause a nose pitch down moment, and an increase in thrust will cause a nose pitch up moment. This is achieved by having the average thrust line BELOW the average drag line.

Thanks guys.

I kind of thought it might be a certification requirement but couldn't find anything in JAR 25

Gonna try a smiley now.

To infinity and beyond http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif

Rusty Cessna.
The Embraer ERJ 145/135 etc does not have a variable incidence tailplane! Sorry, but it WAS a good idea!! :)
Keep on reading.
Eff Oh. :)

D'oh!

hehe. Best get back in the books then!
Rusty :) :) :) :)

Must add an amusing side to this subject.
My collegues were involved with one of the E145 "pitch/trim" incidents. Apparently the pilot asked for a long, dry runway that was into wind (this was the weekend of the storms/high winds/rain). Somebody in the tower suggested "Tenerife"! What's more - the suggestion was Genuine!

Smoketoomuch. Yes Im aware that it is illegal to listen to certain radio-frequencies without a licence. I read the report on one of the many news wire services that we use in our profession. Thats how we are alerted to certain incidents. So Im afraid your censure was wasted on me.

Latest. It was a tongue-in-cheek question, not seriously questioning your integrity. I must get these smileys sorted out so people get my [admittedly poor] jokes.

Regards.