Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MD-87 hits fence after takeoff from TME. All passengers survive the crash.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LH-B744
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    I am sure he understood and was just being a [BLANK].
    Ahm. I am hopefully allowed to be offtopic for one minute.

    I lit 25 candles for you. Not as a revenge for what you did for me 8 or 9 weeks ago. But.. one candle for every year of your membership here at jetphotos? No, that wasn't it. But there was something.

    Ah. Now I remember.

    25 skyrockets for new years eve . Or simply, for you.

    Happy birthday, my friend!

    And now, back on topic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post

    Are we sure it’s a distance?


    But calculated as a speed... We look at a speed

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    I am sure he understood and was just being a [BLANK].

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post

    Are we sure it’s a distance?
    "is" as in "occurs", which is clearly expressed in the context: "If you are on a legal runway length, and Vr occurs at a typical distance beyond V1..." Yes, we are talking about distance here.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    ***Vr is a typical distance beyond V1***
    Are we sure it’s a distance?

    Slightly edited.


    Last edited by 3WE; 2021-10-29, 00:23. Reason: To honor ITS

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    I get your point on this runway, but there's too much going on here. There is an obvious issue with #1 from the beginning of the take-off roll. But that shouldn't prevent rotation at Vr. It should still fly. It looks more to me like they rejected at V1 or earlier but didn't retract thrust for some god-knows-why reason and simply applied brakes. It also looks suspiciously like two pilots flying the plane with very different intent, one intending to continue after the engine failure is detected and the other on the brakes. We've seen that before.
    If there was a issue with #1 from the beginning of the take-off roll, there was time to reject and have enough runway. Probably, you are right one pilot wanted to continue and figure out once in the air what to do and the other one wanted to stop.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Two many open possibilities here. We don't know what happened with the engine at the beginning and whether the pilots knew about that. We don't know if the acceleration was normal, perhaps #1 was underperforming and that went unnoticed and they saw the end of the runway coming before they reached Vr. There are rumors that the pilot said that the plane would not rotate. This can be due to many reasons, one of them being that they were too slow. It can also be control problems, wrong trim setting, or CG more forward than calculated. Then we don't know what happened during the reject. The lack of reverser buckets in the aftermath may indicate that then never applied reverse thrust. The burn marks behind #2 may indicate that thrust remained high on #2. The lack of burn marks on #1 may indicate that #1 was not working at all. But these are not the only possible explanations. The fact that the plane was almost 2 years under maintenance is also a possible source of problems.

    Again, with the pilots alive, the (burned) plane accounted for and in one place, and the 2 recorders recovered, we should know more soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    Do you really expect that the pilot would start the RTO at Vr? I thought you understood human factors. After V1 the pilot has a very strong "take off" mindset, At Vr he starts to pull back, after a couple of seconds nothing happens, then he pulls up harder and harder and nothing happens then he says "ok, this is not flying, ABORT!", By then they are past V2 and a LONG distance past the V1 point. And this runway was not particularly long.
    I get your point on this runway, but there's too much going on here. There is an obvious issue with #1 from the beginning of the take-off roll. But that shouldn't prevent rotation at Vr. It should still fly. It looks more to me like they rejected at V1 or earlier but didn't retract thrust for some god-knows-why reason and simply applied brakes. It also looks suspiciously like two pilots flying the plane with very different intent, one intending to continue after the engine failure is detected and the other on the brakes. We've seen that before.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    If you are on a legal runway length, and Vr is a typical distance beyond V1, and you adhere to RTO procedure, you should not leave the runway surface the way this one did.
    Do you really expect that the pilot would start the RTO at Vr? I thought you understood human factors. After V1 the pilot has a very strong "take off" mindset, At Vr he starts to pull back, after a couple of seconds nothing happens, then he pulls up harder and harder and nothing happens then he says "ok, this is not flying, ABORT!", By then they are past V2 and a LONG distance past the V1 point. And this runway was not particularly long.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by gurrit View Post
    If you crossed V1 and you discover it does not rotare at VR there is not too much to do. Reject and pray. Remaining runway can or can not be enough.This time was not enough
    If you are on a legal runway length, and Vr is a typical distance beyond V1, and you adhere to RTO procedure, you should not leave the runway surface the way this one did.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    or the pilots may have turned off the engines except it didn't work for #2 because of damage in the controls.
    Remind me again, what is the first pilot action during an RTO?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    If you crossed V1 and you discover it does not rotare at VR there is not too much to do. Reject and pray. Remaining runway can or can not be enough.This time was not enough

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Would the grass be burned that far behind the #2 engine if it were at ground idle? I'm inclined to think this was not a proper reject performance.
    There may be multiple explanations for that. Who know what happened with the control cables that go from the throttle levers to the engines, when the plane was damaged during the excursion. In the same way the lack of burn marks for #1 doesn't mean that the engine was not running during the late part of the roll. IT could have been damaged during the accident sequence, or the fuel lines could have been severed, or the pilots may have turned off the engines except it didn't work for #2 because of damage in the controls. And that we don't see reverser buckets deplyed doesn't mean either that they were not deployed during the reject sequence.

    Of course, an improper reject technique is a possible explanation too.

    Bottom line, not enough info.
    Hopefully with both pilots alive, the aircraft destroyed by fire but probably with a good bunch of evidence out there, and the 2 flight recorders recovered, we will soon know more facts about the factual information.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    Ok, this is the footage I was wanting. Clear view of the plane and the runway end.... and quite obvious tire marks on the runway and a good way beyond probably up to the point where the plane spun around and the gear collapsed.

    The plane was not flying, and it was braking (at least with the wheels, because the reversers are not deployed so a scenario of having the engines at full thrust but brakes applied unintentionally is still possible).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du6tgqA9R1Q
    Would the grass be burned that far behind the #2 engine if it were at ground idle? I'm inclined to think this was not a proper reject performance. The puff of white smoke could be FOD (bird? loose or forgotton bolt?) but weird for a bird strike to happen when the a/c is barely rolling.

    I love the retro-future aural alerts on the MD-87. Very video arcadesque. I wonder if they were still working on this one. The part 125 thing is very interesting. What sort of compliance structure do they have in place for it?

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    I hate watching that! But he will run through some data.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X